An Update on Mexico's Oil Production--The Rapid Collapse of Cantarell by the Numbers
Posted by Sam Foucher on January 31, 2007 - 12:30pm
Last year, I expressed my concerns about the eventual impact of a rapid collapse of Cantarell on Mexico's oil production (story here). The last production numbers from PEMEX seems to confirm the rapid decline of Cantarell as well as the inability of the Mexican to rapidly bring new production online. The Wall Street Journal (thanks to Jerôme) published an article on Cantarell last week:
The virtual collapse at Cantarell -- the world's second-biggest oilfield in terms of output at the start of last year -- is unfolding much faster than projections from Mexico's state-run oil giant Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex. Cantarell's daily output fell to 1.5 million barrels in December compared to 1.99 million barrels in January, according to figures from the Mexican Energy Ministry.[Update: PEMEX has just put out a press release this morning (thanks Nate!) saying that its crude oil production rose to 3.153 million barrels per day in January, up 6% from December, as it may have fixed a few of technical problems at Cantarell (source). Still, this last estimate put Mexico right back on the low logistic curve on Figure 5 below, so even with this news the decline is still quite apparent.]
From the same article, the following chart says it all!
Fig 1. src: The Wall Street Journal
In December 2006, production went below 3.0 mbpd for the first time since 2001. We have to keep in mind that Mexico is the second second source of oil imports for the United States (before Saudi Arabia) with nearly 1.606 mbpd in 2006.
Fig 2. Result of the Hubbert Linearization on the monthly crude oil+condensate production using the years 1991 to 2006.
Fig 3. Result of the Hubbert Linearization on the monthly crude oil + condensate production using the years 2005 and 2006.
Fig 5. Mexico's oil production and various forecasts (data sources explained in the footnotes). PC= Productive capacities. Click to enlarge.
Table I. Production figures in mbpd.1Productive capacities.
By 2012:
Fig 6. Production, demand and prices in January 2004 values. Click to enlarge.
Notations:
Further Reading:
Dave Cohen, Trouble South of the Border -- Mexico's Oil Production, TOD
Khebab, Potential Impact of Cantarell's Decline on Mexico's Oil Production, TOD
Khebab, Mexico's Ability To Export Oil, GraphOilogy
Tom Standing, Mexico's Cantarell field: how long will it last?, EnergyBulletin
ASPO, Country Assessment - Mexico
Fig 1. src: The Wall Street Journal
In December 2006, production went below 3.0 mbpd for the first time since 2001. We have to keep in mind that Mexico is the second second source of oil imports for the United States (before Saudi Arabia) with nearly 1.606 mbpd in 2006.
Below are shown two results of the Hubbert Linearization (HL) applied on the monthly Mexican production for crude oil + condensate: The first fit is based on production data from 1992 to 2006 (green points) and predicts an URR around 70 Gb with a moderate decline. The cumulative production at the end of 2006 is 34.9 Gb. The second HL (Figure 2) is more pessimistic but reflects the stronger production decline observed since 2005.
Fig 2. Result of the Hubbert Linearization on the monthly crude oil+condensate production using the years 1991 to 2006.
Fig 3. Result of the Hubbert Linearization on the monthly crude oil + condensate production using the years 2005 and 2006.
On Cantarell alone, the decline is quite impressive and the annual production
decline rate could exceed 15% in the next few years.
Fig 4.Result of the Hubbert Linearization on Cantarell's production.
On Figure 5, different forecasts for Mexico are represented:
Fig 4.Result of the Hubbert Linearization on Cantarell's production.
On Figure 5, different forecasts for Mexico are represented:
- IEA World Energy Outlook 2006 : forecasts for Crude Oil (Table 3.2, p. 94).
- IEA World Energy Outlook 2004 : forecast for All liquids (Table 3.5).
- EIA, International Energy Outlook 2006 : World Oil Production Capacity by Region and Country, Reference Case, High and low prices scenarios, 1990-2030 (Table E1, p. 155).
Fig 5. Mexico's oil production and various forecasts (data sources explained in the footnotes). PC= Productive capacities. Click to enlarge.
Some numerical values for the different forecasts shown on Figure 4 are given
in the table below.
| Forecast | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2010 | 2015 | Peak Date | Peak Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude oil + NGL | |||||||
| Observed (EIA) | 3.69 | 3.68 | NA | NA | NA | 2004-02 | 3.90 |
| IEA (WEO, 2004) | 3.93 | 4.02 | 4.09 | 4.20 | 4.14 | 2010 | 4.20 |
| EIA Low Prices1 (IEO, 2006) | 3.90 | 3.94 | 3.98 | 4.13 | 4.54 | 2030-01 | 5.80 |
| EIA Reference Case1 (IEO, 2006) | 3.88 | 3.90 | 3.93 | 4.02 | 4.22 | 2030-01 | 5.10 |
| EIA High Prices1 (IEO, 2006) | 3.84 | 3.85 | 3.86 | 3.93 | 4.40 | 2015-01 | 4.40 |
| Crude Oil + Lease Condensate | |||||||
| Observed (EIA) | 3.27 | 3.25 | NA | NA | NA | 2004-05 | 3.45 |
| IEA (WEO, 2006) | 3.30 | 3.28 | 3.23 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 2005 | 3.30 |
| Logistic Low | 3.29 | 3.18 | 3.06 | 2.66 | 1.96 | 1999 | 3.63 |
| Logistic Medium | 3.28 | 3.29 | 3.29 | 3.24 | 3.01 | 2006 | 3.29 |
| Demand | |||||||
| IEA (WEO, 2006) | 2.10 | 2.12 | 2.14 | 2.20 | 2.40 | 2030 | 3.10 |
| Cantarell | |||||||
| Observed | 1.91 | 1.63 | 1.50 | NA | NA | 2004-01 | 2.14 |
| Logistic Cantarell | 2.00 | 1.76 | 1.48 | 0.75 | 0.18 | 2003 | 2.28 |
The Bottom Line
Figure 6 below is summarizing the situation. Since 2004 (peak year):- Mexican gasoline prices have increased by 20%.
- oil production has dropped by 11%.
- oil rig count has decreased by 20%.
- Cantarell's production has dropped by 30%.
- domestic oil demand has increased by 2.5%.
By 2012:
- oil production may have dropped by 30%.
- Cantarell's production may have dropped by 80%.
- domestic oil demand may increase by 10%.
Fig 6. Production, demand and prices in January 2004 values. Click to enlarge.
Footnotes:
Production data sources:- 1857-1958: from "API Facts and Figures Centennial edition 1959".
- 1959-1964: from "Twentieth Century Petroleum Statistics 2004" of DeGolyer & MacNaughton.
- 1965-2005: BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
- EIA monthly data for NGPL production (1992-2005).
-
EIA data (Monthly Energy Review) for crude oil + condensate
(1973-2005)
- Monthly estimates from PEMEX for 2006.
-
Rig count from
Baker
Hughes.
Notations:
- mbpd= Millions of barrels per day
- Gb= Billions of barrels (109)
- Tb= Trillions of barrels (1012)
- NGPL= Natural Gas Plant Liquids
- NGL= Natural Gas Liquids (lease condensate + NGPL)
- URR= Ultimate Recoverable Resource
Further Reading:
Dave Cohen, Trouble South of the Border -- Mexico's Oil Production, TOD
Khebab, Potential Impact of Cantarell's Decline on Mexico's Oil Production, TOD
Khebab, Mexico's Ability To Export Oil, GraphOilogy
Tom Standing, Mexico's Cantarell field: how long will it last?, EnergyBulletin
ASPO, Country Assessment - Mexico
An Update on Mexico's Oil Production--The Rapid Collapse of Cantarell by the Numbers
PDF version
248 comments
An Update on Mexico's Oil Production--The Rapid Collapse of Cantarell by the Numbers
PDF version
248 comments
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Note the new reddit and digg counters! just click on them and hit the up arrow/digg button to help out!
Don't forget del.icio.us or your other favorite link farms, such as metafilter, stumbleupon, slashdot, fark, boingboing, furl, or any of the others if you are so inclined.
I can assure you that the authors appreciate your efforts to get them more readers.
Thanks for the update, Khebab.
I find all this depressing. And I feel bad for Mexico, which has run its oil industry into the ground, taking all of its revenues. Those people at PEMEX are just as able and hardworking as the next guy. They've done everything they could to keep Cantarell going but you can't change fate. The trouble is, they have not been able to do as much E&P as others have. You can't run an oil business with one arm tied behind your back. It's a shame, especially what this is going to do to Mexico's economy. I choose not to explore the obvious implications of that.
If the Iraq war were not already enough incentive to make the US widely disliked, I think that our overall energy consumption is going to increasingly make us Public Enemy #1 worldwide.
Look at the situation facing Mexico. A poor country, consuming 10% of the oil that we consume, is faced with the prospect of reducing its consumption, so that they can try to export more oil to the the US.
I think that the combination of Global Warming + Peak Oil + the Food/Fuel Debate + the Social Security/Medicare Funding Problem is going to inevitably end with a the necessity of an Energy Consumption Tax.
For once I must disagree. We are energy hogs and we are food hogs, but nobody hates us for that reason. India exports basmati rice to the U.S., and while hundreds of millions of Indians are undernourished as the U.S. undergoes an obesity epidemic the people in India do not hate Americans because we eat rice they produce.
While the U.S. is envied, I see little evidence of hatred outside of the usual suspects, e.g. Islamic extremists. Many many countries are truly hated: Japan, Germany, Russia, Turkey, and France, to name only a few of the most notorious. Because of long memories in China, I think if we could measure hatred, Japan and the Japanese would be by far the most hated people in the world. Old people specialize in hatred.
Young people throughout the world would love to come to the U.S. and live the American dream. With relatively few exceptions, America and Americans are not a hated people--contrary to the impression given by some who apparently have not travelled much. I do not think Mexicans will come to hate Americans; I think they will ever more urgently try to come north to become Americans as the economy of Mexico deteriorates.
I agree with you in the present tense, but not in the future tense, which is what I was using.
We have been dividing up growing--albeit it slowly growing--food and fuel supplies.
What happens when we have to start dividing up declining food and fuel supplies, especially when our per capita energy consumption is twice the EU per capita consumption?
What will happen when TSHTF will depend on who gets blamed.
I think the usual tendency is to blame the usual scapegoats. Mexicans of one party will blame Mexicans of the other political party.
In the U.S. we have a rich list of scapegoats: They will get the blame, regardless of realities.
Other countries have their own scapegoats, and were I an immigrant to a European country I would be very very worried at this point.
Of the Mexicans I know personally, not a single one blames the U.S. for Mexico's ills. Indeed, a common sentiment is a wish that the U.S. would annex Mexico in the hopes of freeing up migration and capital flows. Mexicans, with good reason, blame their own government for their ills.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR200701...
A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis
Mexico Grapples With Soaring Prices for Corn -- and Tortillas
By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 27, 2007; Page A01
They should plant more corn. This is not a problem but an opportunity to get rich.
You are greatly oversimplifying. Opportunity is reserved for those with the resources to alter their circumstances. Unfortunately, land and wealth aren't uniformly distributed in Mexico -- a situation which the oligarchy is just fine with. Which is why "opportunity" for the average Mexican means "going north."
Land and wealth aren't uniformly distributed anywhere in the world (especially in so-called communist workers paradises) but that is besides the point. Mexico has the largest economy in Latin America, low inflation, steady (if mediocre) economic growth and even some bright spots where they dominate the world. Certainly better opportunities exist in the US, but there are farmers in Mexico, even small ones, that will get rich if they plant more corn and participate in the global ethanol industry. Those people will spend money on construction, entertainment etc. and this money will ripple through the Mexican economy.
People are portraying the run-up in corn prices like it was some kind of disaster, when now, farmers are actually getting paid what they deserve for their labor. It is not a disaster it is an opportunity. Did I complicate it enough for you Tarzan?
Mexican corn production has doubled in the past thirty years. In recent years, domestically produced white corn displaced white corn imported from the US, as state provided incentives encouraged even greater domestic production. The US had begun exporting white corn to Mexico in the nineties in increasing significant amounts.
US corn exports to Mexico are mostly of feed corn destined for pork and chicken manufacturing enterprises. I suspect that the obesity reported among Mexicans referred to upthread is related to higher meat consumption as the price of meat has declined remarkably compared to tortillas and other wet corn and corn flour products.
So, Keithster, how exactly do you propose 'they' should go about getting rich? The welfare cheque provided Mexican corn farmers accounts for an even greater share of said farmers income than the cheques distributed to the welfare moms with land tenure in the US.
Do 'they' count on the Mexican government maintaining the subsidy level as 'they' plant more corn, assuming 'they' can find suitable ground for corn production? Do 'they' displace some of 'their' co-farmers, so that machinery and chemistry can up production more than it already has? Do the displaced go to California or Virginia?
You fundamentalists are all the same. Ignorant.
Plant more corn, sell it, make more money.
Higher corn prices means higher revenue. If the Mexican government wants to keep paying subsidies then the farmer makes even more money.
See above. If the government wants to foolishly keep paying subsidies that is their problem.
Where is the evidence that Mexico is running out of farmland?
What displaced?
And rich.
I'll take that last as meaning you're proud of being ignorant and rich.
Yeah sure why not. I tore apart his arguments, I can at least throw him a bone.
Flaming is better when we all relax.
Years ago, I swore off arguing with moonies and other assorted fundamentalist loonies.
But here are some matters to consider:
The doubling in Mexican corn production over the past several decades has occurred with the stimulus of state provided incentives, but without an expansion of lands cultivated for corn. What does that tell us? Why would landowners and farmers not have planted corn on abandoned or ignored or otherwise employed land during a period when government largesse made it virtually impossible to lose money doing so?
The run up in corn prices is a function of higher oil and gas prices. (In the US these fundamentals are conflated with so called national security issues, which is just a way to obscure interventionist policies undertaken to benefit elites). Corn production, even in Mexico with its abundance of cheap labour, is heavily dependent on oil and gas inputs and so profits do not increase as much as prices, if at all. Profits are also constrained by the costs of obtaining and maintaing land tenure. How much profit is available for each additional bushel of corn produced in Mexico?
The government of Mexico relies on domestic oil production for 37 % of its revenues, a stream of cash now clearly imperiled by declining overall production. What is the likelihood that the government is going to be willing to increase the expenditure on corn production supports, subsidies that amount to over 30% of the price paid to corn growers? What is the likelihood that the government sees an opportunity in higher corn prices to reduce expenditures on corn production supports?
There are other points to consider, but my dog needs a walk. In any case, there is enough here to tie up your bone(head) for a bit.
And precisely the mentality that proves to me that this society, and most people for that matter, have no future in the coming power down.
Perhaps if the solutions we seek were based on morality and the common good there would be a glimmer of hope.
I wish all those that are 'Rich' in the current system of things all the best with their worthless piles of wealth in the coming era.
hand waving
n.
Usually insubstantial words or actions intended to convince or impress: resorted to hand waving instead of arguing rationally.
If all the poor in Mexico have to do is plant more crops, why don't aren't they doing just that? How nice that you've solved the problem of world poverty.
Also, I'd rather be enlightened and poor than rich and ignorant.
Hello Free. Nobody is answering your question so I'll try. It will be from memory and I will stand to be corrected by the collective wisdom present.
Well. The Mexican poor do not have land on which to plant. They did, but NAFTA fixed that.
After the last Mexican Revolution (Viva Zapata!) Mexico was surveyed and ejido lands (translated as corn and bean land) was allocated to every village. Each village gave land to each family. The ejido land was enshrined in the Mexican Constitution. By NAFTA time the Mexican population was much larger and usufruct of ejido lands was a bit altered but it was good land and still provided much of Mexico's caloric intake.
Note I said usufruct. Look it up. Nobody owned this land. Land cannot be owned, only usurped or used. Ejido lands were protected by the Constitution. They were absolutely inalienable. Didn't matter how much money you owed, didn't matter if you were ready to sell, felt greedy, the land was inalienable. If a family died out or all moved north, then the village gave the land to a new tiller. It could not be sold. Never. Period.
Now this was anathema to Milton Friedman and all his little disciples. Not merely heresy but a thought which could not be thunk. Doubleplusungood. Thoughtcrime. And efforts were made, endlessly over the century, to bring Mexican peasants into the 'real' world of free market fundamentalism. NAFTA did just that. The treaty abrogated the Mexican Constitution. Created a free market in land and opened the Mexican market to American corn. The results were predictable. Mexican farming is no longer about poor people feeding themselves and their families. The poor are not peasants any more. They are lumpen proles. They don't have land or the use of land. Domestic or imported they need cash to get corn.
I don't know if that's clear. The concept of land which is not owned is too weird for Americans. Totally counter to massive levels of indoctrination. And of course don't believe me, I may be wrong. Have at me.
Old Hippie - If the land was no longer under village control how, or to whome was it re-allocated?
What you appear to be describing sounds similar to Britain's transition from a communal commons based agriculture to an agriculture based on privately owned estates.
In Britain the better farmers, or the more wealthy farmers, or those who had inherited wealth, purchased or gained title to what had been owned in common. If similar process occured in Mexico then someone, or some social group became rich. Who benefited in Mexico's case?
Cheers!
I wish I had a good answer now that a harder question is posed. Like I said I'm shooting from the hip and working from memory. I have looked for answers & I'm looking in the wrong places. Was actually hoping someone would appear on thread knowing more than I do.
What I've read, many times in the years since NAFTA, rehashes the above , talks about how awful it is, and prognosticates horrors. I've no idea how much land has been transferred. Examples I've read are about hot real estate markets where a developer wants space for accomodating gringos.
As far as I know, the families who have traditionally cultivated a plot are now considered the owners. If the family is in debt or needs money for any contingency buyers are ready to take the land. Village input just dropped.
Yes it sounds to me like enclosure. Zapatistas were in some respect a millenary land-to-tiller cult that should not have prevailed in the twentieth century. And now that anomaly is reversed.
Take a look at this article from the UN's FAO. It seems to be a pretty good account of what's happened in rural Mexico, from the Revolution to the impact of NAFTA.
I don't doubt what you say. I was questioning Keithster100's simplistic answer that all Mexico's poor have to do is plant corn and grow rich. That was the reason for my sarcastic remark, "How nice that you've solved the problem of world poverty".
Always an interesting discussion whether Europeans will act in ways they have in the past, or whether to a certain extent, having almost destroyed themselves by 1950 (famines in various European countries continued for several years after the end of WWII), they have learned.
Hard to know - older people still remember such horrors, but someone born today obviously has a different framework. Predicting the future is always hard.
But for those who think Europe is somehow a better place than the U.S., read some European history - ugly, ugly history over centuries.
Rather than rely on anecdotes about the Mexicans you know personally, perhaps we should look at global polling data.
This data shows clearly that dislike of US policies is changing into dislike of US citizens. That has also been my experience of changing attitudes during 35 years of international travel, and it makes me sad.
Anyway, from google
"The survey also indicated for the first time that dislike of Mr Bush is translating into a dislike of Americans in general."
"Asked how Mr Bush's re-election had affected their feelings towards Americans, 72% of those polled in Turkey said it made them feel worse about Americans, 65% in France, 59% in Brazil and 56% in Germany."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1394393,00.html
Isn't hated a little bit too strong? One can just hate certain persons on account of their behaviour, but certainly not entire countries with many, many individual persons.
As you said, I obviously come from a hated country, but I have a lot of friends from all over the world....
But in general, I fear Westtexas is right...
greetings from Berlin
To a large extent, hatred goes like this:
Ethnocentrism (including racism) leads to stereotypes.
Stereotypes invariably lead to prejudice.
Prejudice usually (but not always) leads to discrimination based on hate.
Hatred is not too strong a word to use when it comes to the feelings of Poles and Russians toward Germans.
One of the few items of good news on the hatred front is that (so far as I know) Germans and French people no longer hate one another because of their national affiliations. But within Germany are dark forces, and the problems in France are too obvious to require comment.
Where are you getting this stuff? How does this relate to peak oil?
Peak oil is going to lead to conflict.
My ideas come mainly from the symbolic interactionist school of social psychology.
Peak oil is going to lead to the biggest border trouble between the U.S. and Mexico since 1846.
unless Canada, the US, and Mexico develop a synergistic relationship supported by the elites in all three countries...
PG,
What is your subjective probability of such a happy event taking place?
Or were you being funny?
half tongue in cheek, half looking at the context and saying "hmmm, Mexico provides cheap labor, Canada provides the energy, and the US provides the consumption...isn't that interesting..."
so, no...I don't think there's a high probability of such a confederation forming any time soon, but in a generation or two?
...and perhaps I have read too much first and second gen cyberpunk/corporate state writing, but it sure does seem to make sense from a logistic point of view.
As with many looks at the future, this is but one possible scenario... :)
Prof...there may not be a high probability of a cooperative confederation, but of a "forced" confederation...now that has different probabilities doesn't it?
Vive the United Northern Territories...eh?
Hello Prof. Goose,
Hate to burst your assumptions, but possibly a North American Union or Conferation is practically a done deal already:
http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/Archive/2005/Mar/23-128896.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/Mar/23-209281.html
http://www.mexidata.info/id1206.html
http://www.spp.gov/factsheet.asp
http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/prsrl/2006/q1/69852.htm
If the North American topdogs decide to make it so, all they have to do is let the kudzu keep spreading.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
You may wish to review the following web site and pay close attention to the "Report to Leaders," the first link on the top left:
http://www.spp.gov/
What you are reading is an undertaking that has not, to the best of my knowledge, been discussed, ratified, or even presented for consideration by my elected representatives in parliment.
I first learned of this from a US reporter who raised objections as this undertaken had not been subject to review by his elected representatives in Congress. He felt that it represented an imposition on US sovereignty. I agree with him on that but, as you may understand, I take an alternate national perspective.
Don't count on continuing consumption in the states. At some point, between the credit-crunched middle class and the growing ranks of the poor, the rich upper crust who have made fortunes in globalization will find themselves confronting an angry mob.
That may be a bit of hyperbole, but if you follow the economic blogs, the voices are beginning to appear--and I think some economists are beginning to hear and echo them.
And I am not yet convinced that Canada will be joyous partner of the states.
And as for Mexico, the flood of immigrants into the states is a warning that NAFTA did not work, will not work...and, at some point, as the contested Mexican election indicated, we may see Mexico "Venezualinized."
Don,
But within Germany are dark forces
which do exist in every country...
....reading your comments shows, that you are definitely not well informed about what is currently going on in the EU and especially here in Germany.
But to stay close to the energy topic:
It is currently the german energy policy which created the massive growth in alternative energy sources like wind power, pv, biomass and geothermal energy. I hope you don't think these are the dark forces here. Because I personally regard this as a pioneering idea which will change the energy world much more than any kind of mandatory aims provided by politicans or anything else. If we want to escape from the energy trap we need to create a renewable energy technology which is cheap and abundant. This is exactly what is going on and what has started in large parts a couple of years ago here in Germany.
--
And to be honest, as 33 year old European with quite a lot of friends in and from places like the UK, Netherlands and Poland, I was never confronted with hatred only because I come from the country where I was born. I don't know where exactly you live, but here in Europe we are used to be in contact with many people from many countries and we travel a lot to foreign countries. This is the best way to get a feeling about one's own country and how to act with people from other countries. I personally live in the center of Berlin only one mile away from the parliament building. There are many people from abroad who live here and it doesn't seem to me, they feel living in a country with dark forces inside. Maybe I should walk down the street and ask my chancellor....?
From what I have read (no personal experience), the existence of large numbers of foreigners from countries such as Turkey has caused a good deal of friction in Germany--which is also a magnet for people fleeing the economic disasters to the east of that country.
You are correct, however: My references to "dark forces" apply to any strong prosperous country that may see its way of life threatened. So long as Germany is prosperous, I think these dark forces will remain latent--just as they were in the decades before the rise of Naziism, which was the child of the inflation of 1923 and the Depression of the early thirties.
Prosperity breeds good will.
And vice versa.
Immigration and integration are generational and social problems. When I grew up in Germany as a kid the problems of being a foreigner were different than they are today. My parents were still being told that we do not belong there by older adults and in the 1970s journalists went undecover to experience first hand what it meant to be "Abdullah". I believe those experiences were forming for a whole generation of young people who are todays politically active adults.
On the upside, my problems in school were more related to being a nerd and not being cool than from me not being German. But that was exceptional because I look caucasian, speak the language perfectly and did not grow up in a large city with real minorities. A second or even third generation Turkish adolescent will experience a very different environment and they will be subjected to pressure from both, the German environment and their own culture, probably more from their own people than from their German friends, actually. Extrapolate that to a veiled Arab girl or even a young, unemployed Arab man in a German town with high unemployment rate and the problems start piling up...
I believe that Europe lived under the illusion for a decade that it had solutions for its immigration and integration problems and that fear of and hate against foreigners was declining. And I think, it was, within the well educated and employed layers of society. After the wall came down and unemployment soared, that illusion broke down in Germany. After 911 it broke down everywhere. Since then the politicians are managing the problem. I don't think anyone will say any longer that it has been solved in the past.
Prosperity breeds good will. Indeed. But that is a powder barrel with a very, very short fuse.
Infinite;
Thanks for your first-hand perspective of this. I was interested in Tom Friedman's program 'The Roots of 9-11', I think it was called, (while my regard for his work has its ups and downs) he put some emphasis on the radicalization of the young Muslims in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, making the point that unlike the US, one can have a much harder road towards acceptance and integration into these cultures. You may be able to live on the same street, get a degree or a job, but actually being 'in' is another thing entirely. Now while I know there are many gray-shades in this topic, I wanted to hear whether you get the sense that America has been notably different with regard to assimilating, accepting.. or even if you think it has the potential to be different, were conditions right for it..
My wife and I lived in NYC for many years, and now in Portland Maine, and both have signifigant or even overwhelming influences from migrating populations.. but as Leslie remarked of the time she spent in Switzerland, France and Spain.. it seemed anyway, that by and large, what you had was Swiss, Frenchfolk and Spaniards, while the US has much greater swatches of peoples from every continent. (Again, seemingly)
I'm not dreamy-eyed about the US, but I am curious about how others have experienced the differences. A Brazilian friend told me that while he met some knuckleheads at his first job in Massachusetts, I should still remember there are idiots everywhere. I asked if non-American idiots seemed different than ours, and he said 'Yeah, they're not as proud of it as the American dopes.'
Bob
Tom Friedman is up to something there. Immigration and integration in the US are much more related than they are in Europe where one can be an immigrant forever without any chance of real integration. At least that would be my experience, too.
And your Brazilian friend seems to be quite the observer, too.
:-)
Welcome to The Oil Drum!!
You were the one who raised the issue of being in a hated country. I am Canadian and feel no hatred for Germany rather a great deal of respect for Germany not seeking to step into American jackboots and go kill civilians in the name of introducing Democracy. Also the fact of your nations move to renewables, the fact that Germany is seeking to bring legal action against illegal CIA extradition teams.
Can you describe the role of the Greens in the move to renewables? This initiative occurred before general awareness of Peak Oil. What was the factor that gave the German greens such acceptance amoung the populace? How do we emulate them?
For those who think of America as being "loved" or "respected," I would suggest you are behind the times. I feel more like a Czech circa 1936, peering across my border at the continued growth of a militaristic state that repudiates everything that I hold to be of value.
Sadly, I think a lot of others feel the same way. Two friends who have travelled overseas in the last two years have come back to tell me the same thing: they spent half of their time trying to explain what was going on back home (with little success, as one told me). I think it's hard for the average American to grasp just how much damage has been done within the context of the "War on Terra." Knowing, as I do, the way that the American mind works, I don't expect this is going to be rectified by a period of national reflection and contrition. It's all too bad, really.
"Can you describe the role of the Greens in the move to renewables? This initiative occurred before general awareness of Peak Oil. What was the factor that gave the German greens such acceptance amoung the populace? How do we emulate them?"
The Greens are only one factor that changed German awareness of environmental issues. The liberal media (something that does not exist in the US) have been reporting about environmental issues for many years before the political movement was succesful in getting elected.
On the biology side celebrities like Jacques-Ives Cousteau and Dr. Bernhard und his son Michael Grzimek were on TV and in movie theatres with their message since the 1950s (their documentary "Serengeti darf nicht sterben" is still famous). The public had ample opportunity to marvel at the wonders of nature because there were regular tv programs about it almost every week.
At the same time schools would show movies about the effects of nitrates and phosphates on rivers and lakes to kids in third grade. Most of my high school teachers were environmentally aware and there were learning units about renewable energy in the early 1980s.
And honestly, one should not forget that admiration of nature goes back as far as the 19th century and played a very strong role even in the "philosophy" of the Nazis. Germans who would not blink while exterminating millions of people were in tears when they saw a mountain movie...
Environmentalism is not just a political movement. It is part of many people's upbringing. It has, in one form or another existed for a very long time.
As far as PO is concerned: I don't remember it being called that but there was plenty of statistics about oil in 1980s magazines and the general message was: it is a finite resource, we become ever more dependent and one day we won't have any left. It did not take a genius to understand that.
I don't think the Greens came before resource awareness, at all. It wasn't even their main theme. Conservation was more a matter of keeping the little bit of nature we had left intact and restoring what had been destroyed. To a Canadian this might not make sense. To understand the basics, you have to travel to Europe and go on a hunt for undisturbed primary forest. It will be a very difficult task, indeed, because there is almost none of it left.
And then there was the anti-nuclear movement which grew out of the awareness that in case of a war Europe would be covered with mushroom clouds while the US and the USSR kept deciding if they really wanted to go for the final showdown. That energized people a lot.
Can you describe the role of the Greens in the move to renewables? This initiative occurred before general awareness of Peak Oil.
There is already a quite complete answer which doesn't need to be supplemented. Maybe I can emphasize the societal awareness for environmental issues. Formerly it was conservation of nature, meanwhile it is much more climate change which "propels" us to act. Back in the 90ies there was a quite emotional discussion about garbage here in Germany, which rsulted in a recycling economy in the end. This is the reason why we have several dustbins for normal garbage, paper, packaging materials (plastics), bio garbage etc....
The renewable energy industry emerged slowly from some pioneering enthusiasts in the 80s which has grown bigger and bigger and which now entered a stage which is large enough to look for customers all over the world. Already a multi billion industry which grows more than 35% p.a. The Green party triggered this awareness, hoewever almost all partys in parliament supported it. Even the conservative partys did so.
Mayby one explaination is our strong heritage in producing technical things. Renewable energy technology is machine building technology. Services are not so popular here, people want to produce things...
Meanhwile, after several disruptions and indirect threts in natural gas supply more and more people and politicans speak about becoming more independent from foreign energy deliveries. The topic peak oil, however, is almost unknown. But I do my best to tell people here since I hear of Peak Oil back in 1999.
There is one important man whose name is Hermann Scheer. He is the man who - as I think - changed the energy structures in world more than anyone before. His visions of a completly solar-based economy are the nucleus of the german in-feed-law which has changed and will cange much more the way we produce energy. I even think this law is much more successful than any kind of Kyoto treaty. It is important to harness the market dynamics. Scheer's book, as far as I can tell - is as well available in Englisg. He won as well the alternative nobel prize for his efforts.
Marotti32 - Danke! I consider myself reasonably well read but Scheer has never appeared on my radar. From what I have found about him his work sounds of interest to the TOD audience. An overview may be found here:
http://www.folkecenter.dk/en/articles/HScheer_aburja.htm
His books are available through Amazon. Reader reviews vary from "best of the best" to "he is out of his mind." I view such disparity as an invitation to a provocative thinker :-)
Is the work of Ulrich Beck well known at "street level" in Germany? He is a German sociologist writing on what he defines as Risk Society and I wonder the degree to which he is known to the public.
Anyway, thank you for the response and again welcome. I find it a great benefit to understanding to be exposed to views other than the Amero-centric. Hope you can be persuaded to stay around.
Guten Tag!
Hi new account,
I've been registered here at TOD since 1.5 years. I recommend Scheer's book The Solar Economy (Munich 1999
• available in 10 languages).
I don't know how it is translated into English, but his writing is very good (I did learn a lot of words from his books). One time I had luck and could listen to one of his speeches (he is member of parliament and he is the president of Eurosolar.
I know Ulrich Beck, he is a famous sociologist, but he is certainly not known on "street level". Beck, as much as I know is as well interested in environmental issues. His risk society is the work I know as well.
I actually don't think TOD (this abbreviation means in German:"death"!!!) is Amero-centric. There are quite a lot of commentators from the UK and other places in Europe.
matthias, berlin mitte
Sailorman,
Then why does one get the impression upon reading TOD that it is the opposite of what you say. That we are hated. That we are the filthy, ignorant,assholes of the world?
If this is what I read and its extremely vehement then why does it exist here?
I agree our politicians are scum but that is not us. They just use us to feed on our blood. We have exported most of our industry and much of our jobs. Is that why we might be hated? Again ..why?
I agree with you BTW.
airdale
In general, and with a few obvious exceptions, Americans are not hated by foreigners. If you travel, you find this out.
There are some self-hating types in America, including some highly verbal people, and I think they project their self-hatred onto others.
Mexicans are a friendly and hard-working people; I love them. Mostly, Mexicans like America and Americans and wish that Mexico would be more like the U.S.
People who post a lot post a lot: That does not mean that they are in touch with reality.
Americans are friendly and hardworking people. I love them. Why, some of my best friends are even Americans.... ;)
Just don't let your sister marry one...
airdale:
I make some pretty negative comments about your country. I do it on a regular basis and I do it intentionally. Part of the intent is to provoke the question that you just asked which is "Why?"
Part of it is that by midnight tonight another 80 odd civilians will have dies in Iraq. These will be women, children, old men, all lacking the means to defend themselves. Their names will not be recorded; you and I will never know who they are. We will never know the precise number, or the circumstances.
They are dying because your country made a decision to undertake a conflict. You own government is unable to explain its rationale. I try and make sense of it, look for a reason, try and pierce to some logic. I cannot find it. Even the oil explanation falls away when you examine the theatre of the absurd that constitute America's actions in Iraq.
Still they keep dying. As you read this there be another few lives extinguished.
The proximate cause of all this killing has to do with the fact that 15 Saudi citizens, under the direction of a Saudi citizen who was himself supported by the Saudi elite and comes from the Saudi elite, killed 3,000 Americans. KSA is not a democracy; it is not even what we understand as a state. It is a medieval kingdom and you live at the sole pleasure and discretion of the king. The kingdom operates for the economic benefit of the king. He can share this largesse or not as he chooses. But did America seek to extract vengance from the plae and people most closely associated with the killing of 3,000 of her citizens?
America did not. Instead America choose to attack a thug, one that they had created, armed, supported, endorsed. A thug who presided over a country which, after Iran, was the most secular state in the middle east, one that had the equivalent of a middle class, that the best prospects of becoming what we think of as a modern state. Why?
More importantly, why did you let it happen? You cannot claim you did not know. This was the defense that the citizens of the 3rd Reich sought to adopt. We denied this defense to them; I see no reason to extend it to you. Why did you let it happen? Why do you allow your government to lie to you? Why do you let your government spy on you, read your mail, listen to your calls without legal warrant? Why do you let your government prey on citizens of my country and subject them to the American Nacht and Nebel. Why do you allow your government to ignore your constitution, trample on your rights, tell you stories and keep you scared? Why are you so weak when all of your forefathers were so strong?
I could go on and on. You may wish to review this link. It describes a book written by an American I respect:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IB01Aa01.html
You may wish to review this article; it describes the concerns of another American for whom I feel deep respect:
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tuftsdaily....
I find it pretty telling that no one answered your question.
Shame on you US Americans!
"Never complain about something that you let happen."
Davidyson
Not every American stood by. I'm a member of the resistance in the US, and was arrested several times for civil disobedience prior to the Iraq war and also on the day the attack was launched. I've organized numerous other actions. The Federal and state governments have me in their threat databases, and agents routinely infiltrate meetings in which I participate. I'm not paranoid, these are facts.
I did what I could to stop the war and the general slide into hysterical fear, and so did many other Americans. The recent US elections were a tide change, but it may be too little too late. The new political direction is tenous and has resulted in the Democrats joining the Republicans in playing politics with the lives of our troops. Hardly an auspicious beginning.
In my experience the overwhelming crush of consumer life keeps most Americans passive, and resistance has been weakened by the failure of mass demonstrations and a lack of cooperation between progressive organizations.
In my opinion resistance to the madness is growing mostly at the local level. You see evidence of this in US cities and states taking action regarding global warming where the Federal government has failed. I still vote and get involved in actions directed at the Federal government, but I've scaled back quite a bit and am now much more focused on neighborhood, community, and city level activism.
Thanks, liferaft, for showing that there are some sane people in the US (of course I know this, I have got a couple of sane friends there, but it is still refreshing to hear of more!)
(And it still has to be proven that *I* will stand up should there be a similar development in Germany! I am confident, though. ;-))
Cheers,
Davidyson
Why? One word: fear. Fear of a "existential" threat - "Islamofascism" - against the American Way Of Life.
airdale,
While I don't "hate America" in the jingoistic sense that your administration uses the phrase, I will cop to having some very negative feelings about your country. The main ones are sorrow, anger, revulsion and fear. Sorrow for the way you have all cooperated in the betrayal of some of the loftiest ideals on the face of the planet. Anger over the awful violence you have done to people who have done nothing to you - from Iraq to Guantanamo, from Maher Arar to all your incarcerated pot-smokers. Revulsion for the casual assumption of American exceptionalism that has led to the things like the purple-fingered farce in Iraq, Freedom Fries and the structural adjustment programs of the IMF.
But most of all, there's fear. Fear of the world's most powerful nation run amok. Fear of not knowing if I'm on one of your lists. Fear that if I am it will cost me dearly if I stray into the clutches of your paranoid bureaucracy. Fear of what your insane president may do in Iran, thereby cindering the region that gave birth to civilization. Fear that your country may insist that mine ruin itself making you oil. Fear that the unique combination of paranoia and Manifest Destiny loose in your land will spread its malignancy across the continent.
I will make the obligatory demurral that I like many Americans as individuals. But even there, too many individual Americans I have met show signs of infection from your nation's pervasive dis-ease. In talking to them I come to understand why nobody has stood up yet and said "enough". If it wasn't such a suspiciously foreign designation, I'd say that your citizenry suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, from being held captive for too long by inhuman ideology.
So no, I don't "hate America". I don't want to see your nation laid waste. I do want to see you heal yourselves, and the realization that you probably won't adds to my sorrow. Would it be too much to ask, though, that you at least impeach your president and vice-president? That would give me and the rest of the world so much hope.
Other posters already put the finger on the wound, but let me add one thing: Where I live there is an expression "American situations". It means engaging compulsively in conspicuous consumption, whereby an astounding lack of taste is overcompensated by size and cost.
It is used to express disapproval of, or at least to distantiate oneself from, a phenomenon, since nobody would want to be like that.
(If that sounds overly harsh: it's mainstream talk.)
Six - can you tell us where you are located?
Cheers!
Belgium, you know, that squeaking mouse on de Villepin's shoulder when France denounced the Iraq invasion ;) .
I have to agree. The US has an enormous sympathy potential in the world. Much of it has to do with the can-do attitude it portrays in its cultural exports. Young people who have not been brought up in Madrassas simply love that. But on some other levels the country's self-portrait is a complete failure. The amazing amount of conservation efforts the US puts into its national and state parks (in comparison with other countries which have way less nature left) is completely swamped by the the federal government's GW and energy politics. People do not see what gets conserved for the world heritage there but only what is lost due to other actions.
The US has to either join the club on global issues or it will be politically and in the end also economically isolated. The good news is that even many of the more level-headed republicans seem to get it now. I hope that there will be majorities in both houses to force the administration to change course.
Beyond ecology, the US action in Iraq has put it in a square box with a pitbull painted on it (at least as far as the Germans are concerned which I happen to understand a little bit). You can not expect to act against other people's wishes and then be welcome in their homes. You can, however, expect them to keep you on a distance with a stick as long as you run around barking and baring teeth.
I do see hate coming from Mexico, but not because of the oil, but because of the fence and ever less favorable immigration policies. Yes, poor Mexicans do see the US as a place of last economic resort. It is certainly not a place they want to go to but one where they might have to go to and which, despite all the shit that happens, offers some chance of a future. You take even that away from them and they will certainly not like you more for that.
Yes, this 'can-do' attitude portrayed in its cultural exports is commonly referred to as 'Hollywood bullsh*t', and is not believed by anybody much.
The US attitude is to bullsh*t your way to success. This isn't just my opinion: see expat's post on Walmart in Germany on this very site (it didn't work in that case). I know people that work for US companies in Asia that hold the same opinion: sh*t products and services, just hold out with the BS at tender time and then work your subordinates like slaves if you get the contract.
Nearly everyone outside of the US understands that that nation's self-opinion is entirely illusory. It is a pity that you don't.
"Yes, this 'can-do' attitude portrayed in its cultural exports is commonly referred to as 'Hollywood bullsh*t', and is not believed by anybody much."
Actually, if you ever happen to work for a small company, it is all that matters if you want to enjoy life without getting an ulcer. You need a can-do attitude because sometimes the problems you face seem insurmountable.
You need the same attitude in science, by the way, because the textbooks and the people you work with will usually tell you "Has been tried, didn't work.". The really great scientists are those who say "Maybe we did not try the right way in the past. Let me have another shot at it.". You would be surprised how different the results are from people who can do that consistently from those who stay along the well trodden path. I met a lot of the can-doers, and, guess what? They come in every day with a crazy idea that makes you cringe and you say "Carl totally lost it today!". Half an hour later you stop smiling. An hour later you are crunching Carl's numbers and at the end of the day you go home with this "Son of a bitch! Carl is right... again!" feeling. I was lucky to work for a guy like that for a couple of years. It was the best time of my life. I learned ten times more from him than I learned from anyone else.
"Nearly everyone outside of the US understands that that nation's self-opinion is entirely illusory. It is a pity that you don't."
Actually, I do understand it from the inside. But the self-illusion is not the can-do-attitude. The self-illusion part is that you can-do-better-than-others.
You think that the American farm boy who has a life to lose can be made into a better fighter by technological attachements than the crazy Muslim who has a heaven to gain when he dies. Big mistake. The Muslim wins when he wins. The Muslim wins when he loses. The Muslim wins when you don't win. The Muslim wins when you get tired. The Muslim wins because he has nothing to lose. And all the time you go broke paying for the high-tech attachements.
You think that the US automobile worker who spends his spare time in front of the big screen tv with a sixpack has an advantage over the Chinese factory worker who wants to desperately escape the poverty of their village. Bad idea.
You are going down, indeed. But not because of your cultural message but because of the lessons that others have learned form you when you were at your best! You need to re-learn to listen to others rather than trying to shout them down. You were the masters, indeed, but now your eager students are surpassing you. Just look at the power of capitalism in China. It might be based on the same BS you teach in business school. Except: they have ten times the capacity for it at one half the cost.
The roots of how America is perceived globally are better explained here: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-27.htm
" While the U.S. is envied, I see little evidence of hatred outside of the usual suspects, e.g. Islamic extremists. "
Read it and Weep.
Why Nemesis is at the US's door By Chalmers Johnson
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IB01Aa01.html
I hate to disillusion you, but this is untrue, and increasingly so. Americans are widely hated even in the Anglophone world, which I, as an Australian, am part of (yes, many us of really do hate you).
As for the 'envy'...please do not make me laugh. As I understand it, it is typical for people in the US to receive 2 weeks annual leave. This is the standard that applies in Hong Kong, where there is not even a pretence of democracy and everyone understands that their society is run solely for the benefit of employers. In Australia, you can expect four weeks: in Germany, six. Hey, I know where I would rather live. And, with the exception of desperate Mexicans who have no other First World country to run to, so does everyone else.
Don,
Have you been outside the US? US is not very popular at all in many of the first world countries, and don't ask mexicans what they think about US-americans. They would love to have the same standard of living but that's another thing.
I have to disagree. I have lived outside the US for many years, mostly in Mexico -to be specific. I don't run into a lot of outright hate fortunately, but I do come across it from time to time. Things have definitely gotten uglier in the last few years. Much more common is a lower key, but not unspoken, widespread resentment. PRECISELY because Americans are seen as overbearing, arrogant, hogs. The lower you go on the social scale -especially in the cities- the more common this is.
Wow. Are most USians really arrogant enough to believe this?
Wow.
I would suggest to you that at least some portion of the billions of people living in poverty would love to immigrate to the U.S., but they would equally love to immigrate anywhere where they could have a healthier life. It is strange to me that USians believe they have a monopoly on higher living standards and "freedom". As for "living the American dream" - surely the legions of poor in the U.S. are wondering what that's all about. There are countries in the world with poverty rates half that of the U.S. The U.S. is near the bottom of "industrialized" nations in terms of newborn mortality (e.g. 3 times more likely to die in first year than Japanese babies). The recent hurricane in New Orleans shows how large the social problems are in the United States. Racism still looms large. There is no health care for those who cannot afford it. Pollution is a huge issue in many large cities. The murder rate in the US is nearly quadruple that of its neighbour to the north. etc. etc.
I'm not suggesting other places in the world are a panacea, just suggesting to you that you are viewing the world with blinkers on if you think the general view of the United States is one of envy.
A poor country, consuming 10% of the oil that we consume, is faced with the prospect of reducing its consumption, so that they can try to export more oil to the the US.
You make it sound like Mexico is exporting oil because it somehow feels it has to feed the gringos' enormous appetite.
They do it for the cash. US is addicted to oil. Mexico is addicted to oil revenues.
Same with Canada's oilsands. I've heard people say the US was raping northern Alberta.
Ohhh it's definitely consensual. And should the prostitute ever cry, "Rape!", at little scepticism wouldn't hurt.
As noted up the thread, we are viewing the future using the rear view mirror of expanding food and fuel supplies as a guide. What happens when we have to start dividing up declining food and fuel supplies? (Obviously enough, a zillion people have raised this issue before me.)
What happens when we have to start dividing up declining food and fuel supplies?
This is a question that a lot of light can be shed on by studying history, especially economic history. It is by no means a huge unknown.
BTW, currently the Mexican poor are obese:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3507918
It just hit me again how rational it is for the poor of so many nations (very much including the US) to pack on the pounds in good times
These people are hauling their reserves around with them. Perhaps we need some data on theoretical depletion rates of fat folks when calorie intake is constrained to say 1500 per person.
The Wall Street Journal says Mexico has laws against hoarding corn that are rather hefty.
But if corn is carried as fat in your body, you are not hoarding, are you?
Obesity is a huge worldwide problem. The ethanol industry will help use some of the extra calories but this will still be a problem. In fact, worldwide obesity is a bigger problem than peak oil.
Keithster, you need to get out a little more. It's a big (hungry) world out there.
Yeah that last line was flamebait but worldwide obesity is the bigger problem than hunger. Don't take my word for it,
take Harvard's
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/symposium/sacks_files/v3_document.htm
or the UN's
I'm a bit of a fat fuck myself. Though not quite technically obese.
So, I have reserves. And since my early 30's reserve growth has been steady.
I guess it's really an SPR since the energy is there for using. No production needed.
Adding to it is very cheap. 10 kg of white flour (36,000 cals) sells for $7 Canadian in Toronto. 8 kg of rice goes for the same amount. At least for some brands, anyway.
Peak oil, if it come soon enough, just might stop me from getting diabetes.
Ha! Ha!
Well, if we in New England ever experience Peak Donuts, there WILL be hell to pay!
Oh, it's a religion here, too. When I walk down the street toward my condo with a box of donuts, I draw more eyes than Pamela Anderson topless. And from both sexes. Well, at least the box does.
People stare at it. They can already feel the soft sweet pastry on their tongues, and the sugar in their veins.
No one does donuts better than the Canadians. I grew up in Buffalo, NY, and we would get a lot of Canadian stuff our way. Tim Hortons in the morning and Labatts after work. It was great! Guaranteed reserve growth though.
That's an interesting statistic. No surprise, I suppose that "obesity" appears to escalate as incomes increase" though, at least within the US, I suspect that the poorest are those that suffer most from being overweight (I'm sure I could find documentation for this but I don't have time at the moment). Anyway, it's nice to know that we are all going to pot together, I guess.
deleted dupe
lot of biodiesel walking around out there!
Well, not so much as you might think.
I calculated that if we would use the energy content of 5 billion people (leaving us, the Western countries alive and burn the third world) we could only fuel our world with it for 7 days....
for an addict, seven days is a virtual lifetime.
Revival of the coal industry offers another solution. Since there will be limited fuel and no feed for draught animals, we may as well employ the fat poor at the pithead. Dickens, Orwell and a host of others can describe how this is done. Once this program is instituted I can assure you Keithster, that there will be no more poor.
We can overcome that drawback by sending you down the pit in their place.
Dormez bien, mon ami.
Thank you for spelling hoarding correctly.
That's easy. One pound of fat can be converted to 3500 (kilo)calories. So, as a very simple example, if a (relatively tall) person needed 3250 calories per day and their intake was 1500 calories per day - a deficit of 1750 per day - they would lose one half a pound per day. 30 pounds of fat would be gone in two months.
Think of it as about as useful as the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve. It will get you through a supply disruption, but it isn't going to keep you going much beyond that.
(Of course, there are people who are small enough to be able to maintain their weight on 1500 calories per day. In the event of a long-term food crisis the Small Shall Inherit The Earth.)
"What happens when we have to start dividing up declining food and fuel supplies?"
A lot more people will be driving one of these:
http://www.rodneyhide.com/images/uploads/side.jpg
or these:
http://zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=242
or one of these:
http://www.japanparts.com/shop/pic/cars/prius.jpg
or just one of these:
http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/mercedes-benz-carbon-bike.jpg
And we will eat more of this:
http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/veggies/images/broccoli.jpg
rather than that:
http://www.cow-sensation.de/MuKuh.jpg
:-)
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks and I'm wondering...re: "Energy consumption tax". Have you had time to give some thought to how this might 1) work? 2) be put in place? And could you spell it out and explain further?
Would this be then, basically a sales tax? I.e., it would function like a sales tax functions?
And be levied by whom? in what manner? on what goods, products, services (as well?) etc.? And then, at the point of consumption?
How would this impact corporate income tax or would it?
Have you thought about how to make sure the proceeds are routed appropriately and what ends would you consider appropriate?
What do you think of Simmons comment (and a couple of TODers as well seem so share the view) that he's opposed to an increase in gasoline tax? Could we have some expansion, discussion (and perhaps even some shared ideas) on this topic?
I would levy an energy consumption tax at the point of use--gas station; business and commercial points of consumption, etc.
IMO, I think that an energy consumption tax of some sort is inevitable.
As far down in the distribution chain as possible: with many buyers, its more difficult to evade. Also, when taxing in bulk at the top, companies would gain much power how to distribute the tax over their customers.
( double post )
The latest statistics down here on australian news radio re oil consumption stated u.s.americans are consuming 23 bbls of crude per person per annum. In china it is 1 bbl. Whilst you may be trending down, the chinese nuvo middle class is both growing in size and appetite.Short term predictions ussume 5 bbls per chinese citizen per year.Thats an extra 8 billion bbls per annum and exponentially rising pre 2010.This may take the heat out of your public enemy # 1 theory.
The implications are dire indeed, and end up with an outpost of the Bolivarian Revolution on your southern doorstep.
I have posted a small analysis of the situation here. In it I predict that the troubles will start in three years. I now think that's overly optimistic.
Glider, your link doesn't work.
Dang. That'll teach me to test my links before I post. Try this.
"Cantarell's Postulate" - "Declining per capita oil production must equal emigration to maintain the status quo"
Get ready for an invasion from the south. Or a local war here.
I think the hispanic population is aready getting the red X as to being a major problem here in the US. Local "minutmen" take camera's and harass would be day jobbers. Ex military qouted in paper with references to "killing little brown ....."
In May 2008 there is supposed to be a national ID ("Real ID")required for anyone living in the US to get gov' services, jobs, etc.. Part of Homeland security regs. Several stories about passing local laws fining landlords who rent to illegals.
...may we live in interesting times...
you want the mil-gov rfid chip jammed up your ass or you want the new tatoo version they're coming out with? I haven't decided which I'll opt for.
I suggest another outcome. You need to look at US population growth rates and project those forward. In another 20 years the Spanish speaking population will be about 40% of total US population. Given that only 50% of the population exercises the franchise this should give Spanish speakers the opportunity to form whatever government they wish.
All other immigrant groups assimilated. They may have started as Germans, or Irish, or whatever, but by the second generation they were Americans (if IP had not used the word "flats" he would have passed undetected). The Spanish speakers appear to remain within their own linguistic bloc; I do not see them assimilating as did prior generations of immigrants.
I think this will be good for America. There will be a resurgence of genuine religious belief, a much deeper appreciation of community, and the issues of intergenerational welfare, much more respect for those on the lower rung of society who are seeking to bootstrap their way up.
The aristocrats of America, the monied lords, the folks who shared the secrets of Skull and Bones; these members of the Ancien Regieme may end up in the KBR work camps if they do not have the sense to flee to a state that will welcome them with open arms. Some place like Iraq perhaps. Or maybe the Congo or Lower Volta. Or some location with no extradition treaty with the US such as Bushturkestan.
This will be a great America, a resurgent America, one the entire world can respect, an America that will no longer see the world as its Pinata for it shall have the real thing at home.
Oh yes, an unassimilated linguistically and culturally distict poor minority, and an new minority that is wealthy and feeling increasingly beseiged is always a recipe for good times.
don't you worry, KBR is building camps for the "implications" and for anybody here who gets out of lineto boot:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2006/BushCheneyCrisis.html
Khebab,
Excellent work, as usual.
David Shields, who has written extensively on Pemex and Cantarell, is predicting a 1.2 mbpd net decline in overall Mexican production (presumably crude + condensate) from 12/05 to 12/08 (the decline would be lower using annual averages). Note that this would essentially end most Pemex crude oil exports by the end of 2008, depending on what happens to domestic consumption
Note that the final decline in Cantarell production did not kick in until the field was about 80% depleted. For the sake of argument, if Ghawar's URR is 70 Gb (a maximum number that Simmons used in his book, based on a conversation with a retired Aramco executive), Ghawar would be about 80% depleted now. And Saudi Aramco is announcing new "voluntary" production cutbacks, literally on a monthly basis.
As I said before, I am certainly no expert on Mexico, but my impression is that they have been focusing on developmental drilling, to the detriment of exploratory drilling, because of their constrained cash flow.
I suspect that Mexico, and a lot of other countries, are not drilling nearly fast enough to keep the decline rate down to the 2% to 5% range that we have seen in the Lower 48 and North Sea, respectively.
I am beginning to think that we will see very, very sharp declines in Mexican and Saudi production, as their largest fields (accounting for more than half of their production) decline/crash, followed by rebounds, albeit to production levels much lower than their 2005 peaks. In other words, I suspect that the Mexican and Saudi production profiles will look a lot like Russia's.
The world is not prepared for a decline in available oil and the decline you reason is likely occuring at Ghawar will entail a good deal of misery worldwide.
Yet I hope you are right. Because the alternative explanation may be that Saudi is stocking oil in preparation for an impending attack on Iran. Possibly both scenarios are unfolding: Saudi production is declining and Saudi is stocking oil so that it may rescue world markets from the impact of an attack on Iran.
I still don't understand why KSA would want to "rescue" world markets from an impact of a possible war with Iran?
They will make MORE money by supplying LESS oil to the market, not the other way round.
They will not be more hated by us if the price of oil doubles than they already are. The majority of 911 terrorists will not have been any less from Saudi Arabia if oil prices stay low.
The chances of the US and KSA to win a hot war with Iran do not depend on oil prices, either, they are zero for all scenarios but one: total nuclear escalation. You want to erase Iran from the map? Go ahead, launch those missiles and put the taxpayers investment in warheads to use. That will work. But forget about nation building there.
So where is the political or economic logic in the claim that KSA is preparing for such a war?
There are only two logical explanations I can see for what KSA does:
1) They have peaked.
2) They are convinced that the market can bear $75/barrel and they want to cash in on it.
These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
Their objective may be changing, too. In the olden days they really did think their oil would last forever, and also that prices could go higher than is good for somebody with infinite supplies... conservation, substitutes, etc. OTOH, if their old fields are crashing, they will be wondering how long they can cling to power and, anyway, with ME and the world running out it is time to go for top dollar, which meanwhile helps pad the swiss accounts.
I think the olden days have gone out the window the first time they had to inject water, the production cost went through the roof and not much more oil came out. When was that? Ten years ago?
I would think that strategy has changed a lot since then. Today it might really be more along the lines
"How can I make the oil last longer and make more profit to keep my people under control for another decade or two? And if that fails, how can I get myself and my family to a safe place (Switzerland?) in time?"
With a finite resource to pay the bills, there aren't really many more short term political concerns than these. To burn tens or hundreds of billions on an Iran adventure would be like handing the rope to the hangman to KSA.
Long term, if they are smart, they have another option, though:
http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2002/05/article10.shtml
I believe that the Saudis are smart because they appear smart on TV. It's just the same with Bush: I know that he is an idiot because he appears like an idiot on TV. Are there many people left who will argue that I was wrong about Bush?
the first time they had to inject water, the production cost went through the roof and not much more oil came out
That's because they were injecting enough water to maintain pressure. Ergo the production rate stopped declining. So "not much more oil came out" is only true relative to what was coming out before; not relative to what they would have been producing without water injection, a few years down the line. Really, water injection isn't such an unusual thing, and it's hardly a panic measure. Many operators plan for it, or even implement it, from day one of production, even in giant fields.
Costs? A few tanks, pipes, pumps and injection wells. Running costs on the injection side are tiny, especially when you get your fuel (gas) for free. When water breaks through to production wells in a limestone reservoir you'll get a certain amount of hassle due to carbonate and maybe sulfate scale. What this might mean for the Saudis is an increase in production costs from a dollar a barrel to - ooh - $2/bbl or so for some chemicals and the occasional well intervention. A 100% increase!
"A 100% increase!"
If my chief engineer comes to me today with a spreadheet that shows a 100% increase in production cost and smaller production numbers, I start asking questions.
Let me ask you this: do you really think the Saudis are totally clueless about what it happening? That they are not planning ten, twenty years ahead?
What makes you believe that?
"So "not much more oil came out" is only true relative to what was coming out before; not relative to what they would have been producing without water injection, a few years down the line. Really, water injection isn't such an unusual thing, and it's hardly a panic measure. Many operators plan for it, or even implement it, from day one of production, even in giant fields."
The point I was trying to make was less techincal than political. I don't doubt that water injection is common practice or that one could do (slightly?) better by reducing the well pressure and producing over a longer time at lower flow rate. Or maybe it is all equal.
The point is that these are all knowns. Just as much as oil being the only driver for Saudi economy at this time is a known. There are not as many wildcards in this game as KSA conspiracy theories would need to make any sense at all.
I do not see the rulers of KSA play a particularly twisted game here that will end in lower oil prices any time soon. Sometimes, most of the time, reality is exactly what you see. I see less production from KSA, rising oil prices, conservation and some sort of carbon taxes in the US.
Ras Tanura and Abqaiq are prime targets for Iranian retaliation. I'd bet any appearance of the Saudis allying themselves with the US, once the shooting started between US and Iran, would result in Iranian retaliation. (Especially since Since the Sunni/Shiite violence in Iraq already appears to be a proxy war between KSA and Iran.) The threat of a missile being lobbed across the Gulf would cripple both the Saudis and us. We know it and the Saudis know it. I just assumed the Patriot missiles Bush announced that were being sent to Iraq were ultimately to protect Abqaiq.
How do patriot missiles protect against sabotage? Iran is a master at using people as weapons. Anyone who tries to mount a missile defense program against Iran clearly misunderstands how the Iranians operate. Ohh... that would be the current administration, then...
Missiles certainly aren't the only way to attack these facilities. Sabotage is also a likely scenario (although the size of the facilities would make it hard for saboteurs to deliver a mortal blow). I'm of the opinion that the Iranians have a pretty strong hand in their standoff with the US. It is hard to see why we are ramping up the tension at this time (unless the only thing restraining Cheney's mad lust for war is a dose of realism).
Iran does not have to deliver mortal blows. "Death by a thousand cuts" works fine for them. Our military is extremely inefficient. We invest millions of dollars to destroy a house worth ten thousand which might or might not have a few fighters in it. At the same time they spend a few million in weapons deliveries a week to keep our whole military locked up in one theatre of questionable strategic value. The joke is on us and they are laughing.
Ghawar has already produced 66 GB. That would make it 95% depleted based on Simmons predictions. Just so you know...
Tomorrow, expect an announcement that Ghawar has crashed over night 80% to be below 1 million bpd :laughs:
PS: That was a JOKE. MOO.
Great article Khebab. And the links to Further Reading are greatly appreciated.
Cheers!
Hello TODers,
My REDDIT post [C'mon TODers, hit the tipjars please!]:
This is an outstanding report by Khebab, easily one of the best statistical chartists & data-freaks on the planet! You have simply got to study this article if you are an American or Mexican. If someone is fluent in Spanish--please translate, then disseminate to the Mexican people so they have a headsup of what lies ahead.
Thxs, because these people are sadly headed into a world of hurt in the years ahead, we Americans need to help them with their geologically-induced Detritus Powerdown by advising them on achieving maximum Biosolar Powerup to optimize their decline.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Yes, great article; thanks for your efforts, Khebab.
Regarding consumption growth trendlines among major producers: Wouldn't one expect these to alter and decrease as the intersection point between production and domestic consumption draws near? After all, if exports are fairly minimal, then there is much less cash flowing around in the economy to fuel further growth.
I agree, the IEA forecast for Mexican demand is a "Business as usual" forecast and things will get strongly non-linear near the intersection point.
Does anybody know, what the CERA forecast for Mexican oil output 2007 is?
I don't have much info:
http://www.energybulletin.net/19120.html
Next time I see a kid playing a make-belief game, I will say to it:
"Aren't you a little over-optimistic, little man?"
Hello TODers,
What will be interesting to see is if Mexico reduces its crude commitment to the San Jose Accords, or withdraws entirely:
http://www.gasandoil.com/GOC/news/ntl43392.htm
--------------------------------------------------
03-08-04 Mexico and Venezuela renewed the San Jose Accord whereby the two oil producing nations supply a total of 160,000 bpd of crude to 11 Central American and Caribbean nations at discount prices. The document was signed simultaneously in Mexico and Venezuela by Presidents Vicente Fox and Hugo Chavez, according to a joint communique.
The San Jose Accord came into existence on Aug. 3, 1980, and it has never been suspended. The countries that benefit from the special crude prices are Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama and the Dominican Republic, the communique noted. The pact also establishes "a cooperation mechanism to promote the economic and social development of the beneficiary nations."
The cooperation accord finances social-economic development projects in the participating nations, as well as trade of goods and services by Mexican and Venezuelan firms. Mexico and Venezuela each provide half of the total 160,000 bpd of the crude sold at discount prices. Source: EFE
------------------------------------------------------
From this link, Hugo Chavez & Calderon are already at loggerheads over the Accords:
http://www.petroleumworld.com/Lag07013101.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Mexico-Venezuela clash over oil as foreign aid
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s use of “oil diplomacy” to secure his position as the leading socialist voice in Latin America is upsetting relations with Mexico and threatening to unravel a decades-old Mexico-Venezuela foreign aid program to struggling neighbors.
Mexican officials are quietly seething at Chavez’s grandstanding, deploring his use of the San Jose Accord as an ideological weapon in his campaign against the United States.
------------------------------------------
At what point is Mexico better off selling this 80,000 b/d to the US, and other high bidders, versus giving away this oil today at discount prices? It surely could buy a lot of Biosolar Powerup goods like PV panels, solar water heaters, wheelbarrows, and bicycles.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Interesting post; I never knew these accords existed. It is also fascinating to see how good faith (I assume) accords meant to help neighbors can turn into ideological weapons. Venezuela--those bastard imperialists! :)
There is a blog called Mark in Mexico written by an American in Oaxaca and he often writes about the reality of Pemex. It is sad to read because the company is so corrupt. Take a look: http://markinmexico.blogspot.com/
Mexicans work really hard in the US but Mexico is so dysfunctional it isn't worth it. Very sad.
In other words the US can outbid poorer nations without raising the price of oil 1 cent.
Interesting.
My understanding is that the Cantarell oilfield is in the same location as the Chicxulub crater that was formed 65-million years ago (and the impact that created this crater is thought to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs).
Would it be the case that the geology of this structure would thus be rather unique, and thus perhaps the methods we use to predicting future production might not work as well for Cantarell as they would for other oilfields?
There is very little predictive power needed for this one. Just wait two years and see how much more oil is coming from Cantarell.
PO is not about who predicts the peak best but it is about how we deal with the fallout of it. Prediction is a game of pencil and paper for whizzkids, conservation and infrastructure change is a tough engineering task for adults.
Ericy, Cantarell is nowhere near the Chicxulub crater. It is on the opposite side of the Yucatan peninsula as the Chicxulub crator.
Ron Patterson
Khebab, forgive me for not joining the masses but I have a couple of critical observations to make:
First, I have warned before about commentators jumping to conclusions on one or two months figures and forecasting the end of the world on that basis. Your Figure 5 is a good example where one or two bad months caused by maintenance problems distorts the underlying picture - happens all the time in the North Sea where summer maintenance combined with unscheduled stopages can cause sharp transient drops in production. The flip side of this is that commentators (optimistic ones) will no doubt latch on to the 6% jump in Mexico's production in January and plot that into the future.
Second, you just got to admit that the HL pattern for Mexico is dreadful. I imagine this is due to production being dominated by one field (what % comes from Cantarell?), and Cantarell has a most unusaul production history.
From this I believe you mean Figure 3 - and I just hate Figure 3. As you know Cantarell's production got boosted by a massive program of N2 injection some years back - this distorts both Cantarell's and Mexicos HL picture. I wonder if this N2 injection has actually added to reserves? I suspect not - but has accelerated production without actually adding to URR. What I'd be interested to see therefore, rather than use the last few years which are distorted by N2 injection, is to use the data before N2 injection started - though looking at Fig 2, I doubt this will help.
To finnish on a contributory note, here's a chart showing production from the main OECD producers. From 1995 to 2003 this shows an undulating plateu that CERA would be proud of, but since, with the UK and Norway passing peak, the slippery slope of decline has set in. Mexico joining the decline club certainly is a amjor cause for concern for OECD oil security - especially given their liking for the black stuff.
Euan, Thanks for the comments.
These two months of maintenance problems (December and November 2006) have no influence on the HL results (outliers), I performed two HLs:
Note that the pessimistic HL is pointing toward an URR close to the ASPO estimate and the past+1P reserves (noted OGJ in the chart.
The preliminary estimate for January 2007 (3.153 mbpd) is putting back production in line with the first HL (red line on Figure 5) so the conservative logistic model seems to be the right one so far.
Agreed, Cantarell is responsible for nearly 60% of Mexico`s production. That`s why I tried a two-stage HL in my last post.
Thanks for the chart, I was thinking doing the same analysis and put the biggest losers together. However, I would not have put Canada in that set for now or at least only the conventional production. Canada is becoming a key actor now with the decline of Mexico, it would be interesting to check how projected syncrude production from Canadian tar sands could offset Cantarell decline.
Khebab - I much prefer this HL lifted from your earlier post - the difference being that it uses unnual averages as opposed to the charts you present here which I believe use monthly data - any comment?
There is a notable dogleg at 20 Gbs, around 11 years ago - this correlates with an increase in Mexican production (see your earlier post) but does not correlate with N2 injection which started in 2000. My eye, however, is drawn to the sub-40Gb intercept of the 15-20 Gb trend?
Here's an HL lifted from Rembrandt's Reserves Growth part Deux:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/21/124953/88
This of course is not linear at all - and Mexico's / Pemex's / USA's concern should be that Cantarell doesn't nose dive like this heading for a 40 Gb URR (Mexico) and near zero production in around 4 years time.
East Texas I presume is a single field - and Mexico of course has other fields, doesn't it - how old are they?
Euan,
Note that these are not both HL plots. Khebab's plot is, but the East Texas plot is annual production versus cumulative.
In regard to your "Two Linearizatons" question. Note that it would put the P/Q intercept in very unlikely territory. The P/Q intercept that Khebab used is consistent with most other large producing regions. This is my longstanding objection to the "Two UK Linearizations" HL plot. Insofar as I know, there is no example of a large producing region showing a 30% P/Q intercept.
Editorial Comment: IMO, we are seeing a consistent pattern of "HL Denial," where the production data--world; Saudi Arabia; Mexico, etc.--fit the model, but we are seeing constant attacks on the method, which is fine. But, at some point, why don't we go with the simplest explanation, to-wit, that regions tend to peak when about half of the reserves have been consumed?
Jeffrey:
Re para 1 - thanks for your comment here - I'd missed the fact this was not an HL.
Re para 2
So you are now deciding on an acceptable P/Q intercept and using that to force the data rather than using the data to determine the outcome? I seem to recall Hothgor turning blue on this point some months ago.
Re para 3 - since when were you authorised to make "Editorial Comments"? Where do you get this HL denial crap from?
So Mexico "fits the model. Khebab has presented to HLs today - one with URR of around 70 Gbs, the other around 52 Gbs - that's a 35% range.
So KSA fits the model. Heres the KSA HL I've posted here several times:
So please now provide your detailed commentary on this plot and why this shows that KSA fits the model. I'm really, really interested to hear how you interpret this data.
And for the record yet again - I'm a great fan of HL but feel strongly that the limitations need to be well understood in order to draw sensible conclusions.
Several of us have had a go at it, Euan. But you won't get no satisfaction.
The reason is that Wes Texas isn't interested in objective analyses of the HL method.
Instead, stay tuned for a long recitation of significant news datums that sum to peak was last year. (At least in the mind of Wesley Texas).
Saint Deffeyes will be invoked and his miracles recalled for the adoring.
Then one will be performed before your eyes. Saudi Arabia will be turned into Texas and the world will be turned in the Lower 48.
Asebius,
Please get back to me when you have evidence of rising oil production.
Hey westexas. The Kudlow show on CNBC is apparently going to say something about Saudi oil production (today, now!). You could email to them (quick!) something about a geological/Hubbert reason that their oil production is dropping rather than what was suggested at the top of the show -- that the Saudi's are essentially gaming the market or whatever.
Kudlow had our buddy Dan Yergin on. He said that oil prices were up because: cold weather; return of the financial buyers and geopolitical risk.
When asked by Kudlow if the Saudis were betraying the US by cutting oil production, he said that they were just carrying out their announced cuts.
Dan went on to say that our #1 source of imported crude oil, Canada, is a reliable supplier and certainly no threat to the US--in the context of a discussion of our reliance on imported oil. For some reason, he didn't mention the #2 supplier, Mexico.
Oh well, same that I heard. I once sent an email to the Kudlow show because I was ticked-off about his view of the election results -- he thought the stock market would tank because the Dems won the house. I wrote that grid-lock is good -- and he turned my email into a question for his guests. Shocked at the thought apparently, "Is grid-lock good?" he asked them.
It was Yergin explaining that the Saudi's cut was not a reversal as reported in some press. Yergin says the "fear premium" is coming back. Yergin also mentioned the weather. Kudlow said the Saudi Oil minister in late December said that SA didn't want to help Iran. Kudlow mentioned that Cheney went to SA in late December (to keep things ok). Yergin mentioned that a lot of our oil comes from Canada. Then they chuckled about Davos.
WT:
Please get back to me when you have evidence of rising oil production.
It actually wouldn't make any difference. We would have to know why it is rising. (ie. is it the result of some unsustainable superhuman push that is certain to damage the fields and hurt production later on)
The situation is very similar to the global warming issue a few years back. We have simple error prone models, we have cloudy data.
You will point that it could be too late before we know for sure. I agree. But that doesn't detract from the fact that we are uncertain now.
So, the issue that confronts us is not: We are post-peak. We must we do X.
It's more like: We are in a state of uncertainty. Peak may be upon us. Time to press hard for more data and better models.
But in addition, we need to model what the impact of peak will be when it does occur, so that we get a fix on the cost of facing peak with little prep.
What we get from you is: Peak is here. Peak will be devastating. Take drastic action. ( Change career. Move to a very small house.)
The reality is more like: Peak may be here. But even if it is, you may not really feel squeezed for some time. The message to governments is more complex. But they are all over this and do their own analysis. Who knows, perhaps some alarmism would force them to be more forthcoming.
In the Lower 48 and the North Sea, nothing we have done has so far reversed the long term decline in crude oil production--2% and 5% respectively.
Both regions, like the world and Mexico, started declining after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.
Three of these declines were predicted--Lower 48; World & Mexico.
My present concern is that we are not drilling nearly fast enough to keep the world decline rate down to the 2% range.
What WT leaves out is when exactly they peaked in relationship to the Qt mark. You could just as easily say:
Both regions, like the world and Mexico, started declining after crossing the 1% of Qt mark.
Both facts would be correct, but are highly misleading. Most regions that have peaked have done so around 45% to 60%. WT is misinterpreting the HL model by trying to apply to a fixed resource with perfect knowledge. Resource depletion only occurs with perfect knowledge of the entire resource basin. That is, we know where all the deposits are, how to get to them, and they are all economical to extract.
Most regions dont follow a perfect bell curve, they follow a curve with an extremely long tail end. Over a long enough period of time, the mark that they crossed Qt slowly falls. For example, the US showed a peak at aproximately 55% QT, over the last 35+ years, that % has decreased back towards 50%, depending entirely on what data set you wish to use or exclude. Given a long enough time, I expect most regions to end up peaking around 40% or so, but unfortunately we wont care 75 years from now if I'm right or wrong.
So Euan, WT is indeed manipulating the data to fit his opinion. He just wont admit it.
Great post!
As I have pointed out several times, both the Lower 48 and Texas had this same "dogleg" right before they, like the world and Saudi Arabia, started showing lower crude oil production. If you just used the data points right before the Texas peak, it, like Saudi Arabia, shows basically infinite reserves. In both cases, IMO, we are simply seeing the final burst of production before the peak.
I am aware of only two large producing regions that have shown more than a 10% long term P/Q intercept--the North Sea, which is exclusively offshore with a steep decline rate, and Iran. Other than those two, every other large producing region that I have seen has had a P/Q intercept between 5% and 10%.
Insofar as I know, there are zero examples of a large producing region showing a long term 30% P/Q intercept. So, the "Two UK Linerarization" model is meaningless.
I can't speak for Khebab, but my assumption is that he would say that the 70 Gb estimate, the one using all of the data with a P/Q intercept of less than 10%, is the most accurate.
Deffeyes predicted that 2006 was the most likely year for a world crude decline, and world crude production is declining.
I predicted, using Khebab's data, that 2006 was the most likely year for the start of a Saudi production decline, and Saudi production is down.
Khebab predicted a decline Mexico's production, in the 2006/2007 time frame, and Mexican crude oil production is down.
You and Robert have been consistently been predicting higher crude oil production, and so far, you have both been consistently wrong.
My question: how can you predict higher world crude oil production when 93% to 100% of all super giants that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more are in decline?
Jeffrey - now's your chance - either you or Kehbab post the plot for the lower 48 showing this famed dog leg up - I thought I did one myslef but can't find it - and its getting late here - but watch this space.
I don't recal predicting higher oil production as production is currently linked to demand - I'm certainly hoping for higher demand, higher oil prices and phat prophets - as opposed to waiting for the end of the world. When demand picks up, so will supply.
Texas & Lower 48 as a model for the World & Saudi Arabia:
http://www.energybulletin.net/16459.html
There is no 'dog leg' up in either of those graphs. KSA is now in its 5th 'anomaly', but please, keep trying!
"When demand picks up, so will supply."
This, to me, is the key question that never gets answered. Has global production leveled off because demand has leveled in the past couple of years based on much higher prices, a reasonable scenario? Or is there some global production limit (peak) being hit. How can anyone know? If you believe what the Saudi's say, it is all demand-based with no supply constraint. Otherwise, you have a grand conspiracy theory.
I am convinced something is very wrong in sa... evidence to date is covincing to me. However, I would like to see the texas and lower 48 HL charts, or links to them, to have a look at the doglegs you refer to.
TIA
You and Robert have been consistently been predicting higher crude oil production, and so far, you have both been consistently wrong.
The demand is not there right now to justify higher production. What I say is that the current worldwide production declines (and specifically KSA) are not involuntary. That's different than predicting higher production. Production is dependent upon other factors than just the ability to produce more. The demand must be there.
My question: how can you predict higher world crude oil production when 93% to 100% of all super giants that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more are in decline?
How did production increase when the last 9 fields producing more than 1 million bpd went into decline? Production "only" went up by 20 million bpd when this happened. So that argument just won't fly, and I am unclear, given the historical example we have to work with, why you continue to make it. You could have made the same argument 20 years ago about the imminent decline of 9 super giants, and your prediction that therefore production must go down would have been based on the same logic you are using now, and yet grossly wrong.
No time for a lengthy debate, though. It is getting close to midnight here in Scotland, and I am off to bed.
You and Euan are predicting that production will increase when demand increases. I disagree.
Regarding the super giants, rather than arguing about the same point, what we need is a plot of the combined production from the 13 one mbpd and larger fields. I am excluding Ghawar because of the nebulous production history.
IMO, I think that the plot will show (until recently), from the time that the first one mbpd and larger field came on line, stable to rising production from the sum of the 13 fields.
Trying to increase aggregate world crude oil production when 93% to 100% of all the fields that have ever produced one mbpd or more in decline is like trying to swim with a 200 pound lead weight.
Hello Robert Rapier,
Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of moving to Scotland is that you are able to disconnect yourself from this sort of endless debate. The Peak Oil issue is not resolved by perpetual arguments. Time will resolve the question at its own pace.
As a general rule my take on this whole graph-interpretation debate:
Peak Oil has not occurred if people continue to debate the subject.
So the persistence of the argument would tend to support your view, Robert Rapier.
There are other subjects that I would love to argue with you about. I know that you care about more thinks than just Peak Oil. We can argue about these other things. Peak Oil will take care of itself, so there is an opportunity for us to argue about more important matters.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Now there's a source of abiotic oil.. hot air!
Wow! I'm glad SOMEBODY was paying attention! :applaud:
Hothgor my boy, I assure you I've been at this rather longer than you - assuming this comment is attached to mine. When I first came on to this site in June I spent weeks arguing with Stuart, Khebab and Westexas about HL.
Khebab came up with loglets which I like a lot - though the math is beyond a mortal earth scientist.
HL is a great technique - but if you do something drastic with your production it has an effect on the HL decline - and understanding the production geology that lies behind inflections is IMO pretty critical to interpreting the eventual outcome.
The red line seems to use only the endpoints of the interval for fitting. I guess using all points and for example the least squares method is much more reliable.
karinick - I'm guessing you were referring to my KSA HL. The point about the red line is that it is drawn through two years when KSA was probably producing at capacity - 1991 was GW1 and 2005 - everyone producing eyeballs out. Had KSA wanted to produce at capacity from 1991 the linear decline on the HL woudl look rather different - and maybe follow the red line which is my favoured projection for the developed Saudi reserves.
Jeffrey, thanks for posting that link - I'd seen it before but forgotten.
OK - I can agree that Texas shows a dog leg feature similar to that forming in KSA, starting around 1966, six years before peak.
So I now I have a collection of 4 countries / regions showing this type of feature - Texas, Mexico, UK and KSA.
Now lets try to agree on something - each of these countries / regions are parts of larger petroleum provinces:
Texas and Mexico form separate parts of the GOM basin (which also includes Oklahoma and Lousiana).
The UK forms part of the North Sea basin - that also includes Norway and Denmark.
KSA forms part of the Arabian Gulf basin - that also includes UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq and Iran.
In this regard, Texas, Mexico, UK and KSA are analagous to each other - do you agree?
And each exhibit this dog leg feature. In the UK, the dog leg is caused by an extensive second tranche of new fields - Miller, Nelson, Scott and many other smaller fields. In KSA, the dog leg is caused by ramping to capacity production.
So I'm wondering if you and Kehbab can help with clarifying what caused the dog leg in Texas in 1966, and the dog leg in Mexico at around the 20 GB mark - this seems to pre-date N2 injection in Cantarell - so were there new fields brought on? Or did Mexico have conserved capacity?
I've read Khebabs comment below about using "immature data" and to be sure, "immature data" will be more sensitive to gross changes in the production portfolio - but I'd still like to know what was going on in the real world. Was it gas projects bringing on NGLs? - If so, this is very relevant to the current status in the ME - where lots more gas and NGL is about to be produced.
Finally, can you put more flesh on the Texas Rail Road story and swing production. I'm reading The Prize right now and have got to 1929 - producing eyeballs out until then. When did Texas start cutting back on production and by how much - you got a reference I could read?
Thanks for any assitance in advance.
Euan
I believe that Cantarell had two peaks, the first one as a result of primary depletion, and the second as a result of the nitrogen injection program.
The first peak in Texas production was 1956, at about 3.0 mbpd. The second and final peak was in 1972, at 3.5 mbpd.
From the mid-Thirties, when the RRC finally controlled production, except for the Second World War and the 1956 and 1957 Arab/Israeli Wars, I don't think that Texas ever really produced at 100% of capacity, until the RRC went to a 100% allowable in 1972.
However, the period of contracting production, after the 1956 peak, was relatively brief. Production started climbing in 1963, and production went up from about 2.5 mbpd in 1962 to 3.5 mbpd in 1972. It then fell, despite the biggest drilling effort in state history, back to 2.5 mbpd by 1982.
I think that the increase in Texas production from 1962 to 1972 was because of demand, in much the same way that KSA increased production up until 2005.
As Khebab has documented, crude + condensate as a percentage of Total Liquids has been steadily falling, which primarily reflects biofuels and more NGL's, from both oil and gas reservoirs. However, the US case history is not too optimistic for the world, since US natural gas production had its all time peak three years after oil production peaked.
In regard to analogues, I like my analogy--that Texas & the Lower 48 are analogous to KSA and the world.
Absent political problems (Iran), accidents (UK), and swing producers (Texas & KSA), empirically regions tend to peak at around the 50% of Qt mark.
As I noted down the thread, the Lower 48, North Sea, Mexico and the World all fit this pattern. We know that three of these were involuntary (the status of the world being the question at hand), and three were predicted (Lower 48, Mexico and world). (All crude + condensate, EIA.)
What I find particularly interesting--and troubling--is that the best case post-peak decline rate seems to be between the Lower 48 (2%) and the North Sea (5%). I increasingly suspect that the world is not drilling nearly fast enough to keep the post-peak decline rate down to the 2% range.
Finally, note that Saudi Arabia, at the end of 2006, was 60% depleted on Khebab's plot.
Thanks Jeffrey - I guess I need to read The Prize faster - presumably Yergin covers all this stuff.
Please, please note that the decline in UK North Sea first peak started in 1986 - 2 years before Piper Alpha. The decline was brought about by the oil price crash and was helped along but not caused by the rig explosion.
Also note that UK decline is averaging 7.6% and I believe Norway is similar - all this is carefully documented in the posts I've written. We really need to nail facts on to the board.
I just did a logarithmic calculation based on the estimated 2006 numbers (C+C, EIA). The UK was 9.3%, and overall North Sea was 5% (from 1999 to 2006).
I posted a proposed definition on an open thread to the effect that a decline is less than a 7% annual decline rate and a crash is 7% or more. At 7% or more, production drops by 50% or more in 10 years.
I'm afraid that using C+C is just going to muddy the waters. The UK DTI quotes C+C+NGL - and that I imagine will be the baseline data used by everyone else. The contribution of NGL to UK liquids production has been increasing significantly with time and so ignoring NGL biases the argument towards a more pessimistic outcome - why would anyone want to do that?
I have two concerns about the inclusion of NGL:
I think the best would be to model each liquid source independently.
Khebab, the point you make about the energy content of NGL is a good one - well worth bearing in mind, however, I see a danger of getting very bogged down. In the UK, I believe the default way of measuring production is mass. This mass is then converted to volume using approximate, sliding, ever changing densities to account for the changing composition of the liquid flows arriving on our shores. At best, the volumteric accounting is approximate. So if you wanted to do anything to modify data analysis the starting point might be to use mass - but I imagine that data is not widely available.
Furthermore, if you are to go down this route of greater detail then would you not need to also account for the energy differences between say Brent, light sweet crude arriving by pipeline at UK refineries and heavy sour Arabian crude that needs to be shipped and requires more energy to refine?
This may well be the case, but IMO, NGL production sure as hell lies an awful lot closer to oil production than corn ethanol, CTL or tar sands mining. What's more, there is a form of continuum from light crude, through condensate into wet gas and to try to separate these from each other will be tricky - and to what end? In terms of petroleum liquids production, NGL is growing in importance relative to crude world wide - so I don't agree with separating this out. If you are to quote C+C then I would say that NGL must always be quoted too in order to not produce a distorted picture.
*************************
On another theme, I think the dog led on the Mexican HL is due to inception of gas lift on Cantarell follwed a few years later by N2 injection. This, IMO is vital to understanding the overall reserves picture - as gas lifting accelerates production without necessarily adding to reserves.
I'm concern about a slowing BTU growth hiding behind an apparent strong volumetric growth. Besides, in order to counter a decline in C+C, volumes of NGPL and "Other liquids" have to grow even faster in order to compensate for their low BTU density. My point is that growth in volume may be misleading.
Unfortunately, it's a daunting task that cannot be achieved but I would say that we need to understand at least the implications of a sourer/heavier crude supply in terms of declining BTU content.
I have the feeling it can make the interpretation of HL result more difficult (more "dog legs up"). Also, you can make conclusions like "I have drilled more natural gas wells so the crude oil URR has increased".
I agree, unfortunately production history for NGPL is less available that for C+C.
All very good points, Euan. The misconception that khebab fears has little basis in application. Nobody who watches our stats, especially mine, are going to be shocked by btu factors. The marketplace has its buyers and users and the altho khebab's concerns have merit on the gross level, they have none on the user level.
The incremental changes year to year in the sub-components of All Liquids is not at significant volumes to cause miscalculation or disruption. There are plenty of category sensitive sites and sources that address their respective volumes and they (govt's/stakeholders/decision-makers) won't becoming to a Peak Oil site to make decisions on a particular category related issue.
To me, the separation from all Liquids serves only an academia type purpose here to say "hey we peaked". This week we changed our Hubbert Peak for Regular Conv Oil to August 2005 from April. But really, who cares? It ain't gonna be on CNN or BBC or AlJazeera tonite. Why? Cuz they are waiting for the big one. The one that matters. The one that will affect consumers and business and govt's. And that ain't Regular Oil and that ain't the new hybrid definition being canvassed.
To play to a very narrow designed definition only debased credibility in the MSM. Frankly it's a qualified crying of wolf. We peaked. But it's a sub-peak. And in the end just causes confusion to the main message...
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the language used here as I have friends who did not survive this "crash." This drop in the price of oil was a direct result of economic warfare waged by KSA. They looked at the growing alternate sources of supply and they opened the manifolds and flooded the world with oil.
The intent was to cut off at the knees anyone advancing renewables, to torpedo any non-OPEC development prospects, to kill off any competitive oil field activity. And it worked. Some one asked about 25 year old rigs: 2007 minus 25 = 1982. Nobody was willing to risk any further investment in big iron when there were tons of it stacked and rusting in every bayou and bay around the world.
I look at the past years run up in prices as being directly due to the slowly dawning realization that KSA lacked the production capacity to undertake similar economic warefare and therefore it no longer represented a potential economic threat.
The fact that KSA is currently building surplus capacity puts them once again back in the drivers seat. Bush had a chance to play at steering a D10; the grown-ups in KSA get to steer the globe.
new account - I'm not sure I agree 100% with what you say here. Between 1980 and 1985 the Saudis cut their production by around 6 mmbpd in order to make room on the world market for Alaskan and North Sea crude.
It seems to me that the Saudis made a pretty enormous sacrifice so that Exxo, BP, Mobil, Total et al could fill their coffers with earnings from OECD crude production.
Euan: I am speaking from experience rather than solid data. I do know that in 1980 offshore day rates for deepwater semi-subs were still climbing and there was a global shortage of the required skill sets. On the exploration side everyone was running 24x7 and making money.
This changed circa 1985. If you had a graph plotting world price per bbl I am pretty sure that it would show a declining price from 1983 1984 forwards. If memory serves we had been adding production capacity in the UK and Norweigian sectors and also Indonesia and Australia. By 1985 it was pretty clear that the writing was on the wall and from that date forward the oil industry pretty much unravelled world wide. Still some work in the East China sea but I turned that down.
There was a query with regards to how long it takes for new provinces to come on stream. During this period Angola was still in the exploration phase and it is only now coming on stream. Nigeria had a fair bit of step out activity. Newfoundland and been proven viable but the project was not greenlighted until 1990 when the consortium had a fiscal agreement in place that permitted a build based on oil at $15 a bbl. Don't sneeze too hard, but that was the threshold figure and even that was doubtful; nobody was quite sure that we could sustain that far into the future.
Most of the current senior executives are the survivors of this experience and it has made them very cautious of committing funds to projects when they know that KSA retains surplus capacity and the abiility to turn on the taps whenever they want.
With regards to Saudi "generosity" it was anything but. Share a pint with RR and have him describe the experiences of the senior COP folks. They'll remember the hurt. The downslope you show for KSA production is precisely what they are doing now. Removing production to sustain the price in the face of a surplus.
Oilco Motive hit home for me when i first started seeing KSA use the phrase "compliance with their business plan". It crystallized their wish to see maximum profits on their Reserves by allowing non-opec and others to sell their oil at bargain rate prices while the Real Price moves up thru the decades. And the plateau vs peak thingy.
But your analysis, Acct, raised some deeper strategies and conforms with some recent opec musings this month about lower prices suppressing alternative fuels development. Thanx.
KSA would have a concern with all substitutes. I don't have a graph of the 1980s price peak but there was a significant move toward energy efficiencies during this period - Drive 55, increased home insulation, energy efficient appliance certifications, mandated MPG improvements, etc. All of these are oil substitutes and they acted to remove demand from the market, most of them on a permanent basis. There was also a nascent renewables industry at this time but they were struggling with the economics.
KSA also had the challenge of enforcing price discipline within OPEC. KSA removed production to sustain price and this supply gap was backfilled by both new non-OPEC production and by OPEC members cheating on their quotas. At some point in that period KSA decided enough is enough and they made the decision to reassert control, to remove the threat from renewables and substitutes, destroy the economics of any new province, and force all OPEC members to either live up to their quota commitments or accept a considerable drop in national incomes.
I'm a little surprised Euan would challenge this as the above is not my thesis but a description of the history. Cannot now remember who the OPEC spokesman was but KSA strategy was publicly announced, had coverage in western business press, was known in the industry. While the oil industry was aware of it, we just could not believe the degree to which a once solid floor turned first to cheese, then just completely vapourized.
By pulling supply in current environment KSA gets to gauge the market. Whatever reserve capacity they build just hangs there in the air like a hammer waiting to be used. Anyone in the industry with experience from this period knows the weight of that blow.
Cheers!
New Account - all I'm saying is that this statement is a bit distorted given that the Saudis had just shaved 6 mmbpd off their production. In 1986, they did say enough is enough (I think it was (Sheik Yamani who was oil minister at the time). You could hardy exepct them to allow their production to fall to zero? So yes, in 1986 they reversed their policy in favour of regaining market share and restoring OPEC discipline. And it worked - in the UK North Sea their was a massive recession that led to a significant drop in production that led to the famous twin peaks.
What would you have Saudi do right now? Produce at capacity and dump the price to $38 / bbl - that would destroy a lot of OECD supply and would not be to our benefit.
JeffreyWT 12:27pm - "The first peak in Texas production was 1956, at about 3.0 mbpd. The second and final peak was in 1972, at 3.5 mbpd."
If i can fill in the history here, let us remember that on March 7 1956 at the API Texas Conference, MK Hubbert predicted that Texas would peak at 3.15-mbd in 1962 assuming a URR of 60-Gb.
********************************************************
JeffreyWT 12:27pm - "Finally, note that Saudi Arabia, at the end of 2006, was 60% depleted on Khebab's plot."
Well not quite accurate. His plot shows rather the depletion of their "developed reserves". HL inherently does not provide for latent unopened fields. Neglecting for the moment their 2P & 3P Reserves, KSA has 1P Reserves of 360-Gb. Only 230-Gb have been developed. It is impossible for Khebab or Jeffrey to claim 60% depletion in that light. He may however state that there is indication that the 230-Gb region is likely 60% depleted.
Source?
The only reference to Texas I have seen is his quote where he said that the US and Texas would peak between 1966 and 1971. In later interviews, he said he was talking about the Lower 48.
BTW, in regard to HL as a predictive tool, it was basically 100% accurate in predicting post-50% of Qt cumulative production for both the Lower 48 and Russia, using only data through the 50% mark to calculate the future production.
And note that Hubbert, in 1956, put the Lower 48 peak between 1966 and 1971.
I concur also that Hubbert defended his position that his usa forecasts were limited to Lower48 and have not seen anything that disputes this.
At the same '56 api conf, he forecast a usa peak in 1968 for 8.2-mbd with a URR of 200-Gb. Unfortunately your statement above is absolutely FALSE as to linearization's degree of accuracy as i explained fully last week.
While Hubbert foresaw a peak for '68 in 1956, in 1971 he had a feature spread in Scientific American proclaiming that a likely peak has occured on Jan 1st 1967. He could not tell from the data that Peak was occurring by the month season or year. He realized there was a margin of error in his methodology. That realization has escaped you. Like him in '71 guessing that it was over four year previously, u don't know if Peak in KSA, Mexico or globally is happening within certainty with finer resolution than his five year margin of error. Any linearization is a mere guide. A five year guide. There is also a wide margin of error within its ability to forecast URR ... likely in the 10-Gb maginitude as one closed in on Peak ... and much higher in the ten years away from Peak.
To that end i remind u of his '56 global forecast. A Peak Rate of 34-mbd in y2k amid a URR of 1250-Gb. By the 1971 SciAmer article, he had changed it to 101-mbd in y2k with 2100-Gb URR; and by 1974 had changed it to 1995 with a 110-mbd Peak Rate and 2000-Gb URR.
As RR has said repeatedly, the target changes as new info comes in. Your data acquisition is no better than anyone else's, hence your resolution is no better.
If we were having this debate regarding the Lower 48 peak, it would be in the 1970-1972 time frame, not 1956. In other words, Deffeyes has vastly better data to work with than Hubbert had.
Khebab took just the Lower 48 production data through 1970, and generated a predicted model. The post-1970 cumulative Lower 48 production through 2004 was 99% of what the HL model predicted.
The HL plot you are showing is for Crude Oil + NGL. Now, I prefer to work only on Crude Oil + Condensate (C+C) whenever the data is available because NGL production is not tied to oil production but to natural gas production (In addition, NGPL production has been significant only from the 80s). I used monthly data when available because it simply gives me more data points (always better when performing a least square fit) and a finer time resolution. I also have better and more complete pre-1965 production history.
These points have P/Q values > 5% and should not be used for fitting because they are still too sensitive to noise.
Not sure but I think all the fields are quite mature.
Khebab - I guess I'll stick with preferring C+C+NGL mainly because this provides a clear distinction between free flowing petroleum and gunk and booze.
Khebab
First, thank you for all your efforts. You and a few others make this the quality site it is. :-)
Concerning Your comment here;
Doesn't that fit perfectly with this rather desperate stance noted here?
U.S. urges 'fivefold expansion' in Alberta oilsands production
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/17/oil-sands.html
http://p088.ezboard.com/US-urges-fivefold-expansion-in-Alberta-oilsands-...
It would seem that the folks ARE very nervious about Cantarell.
John
Concerning increases in Canadian oil sands production, the producers (#1 producer is Syncrude #2 producer is Suncor) will need to be ensured that their additional capex to increase production will be profitable.
The industry is clearly very profitable currently, but it is unclear how the future will play out. Oil sands producers recieve the sour heavy price which in 2005 was $14.50 less than light sweet for oil, from the 2005 AR for Suncor. This spread will do nothing but increase in the near term. So right now they are receiving $35-40ish -- Suncor stated in 2005 their costs were about $15 per barrel. How Suncor calculates costs per barrel is not clear, but clearly Suncor is very profitable.
To commit more capital than already high planned levels would mean the firm is much more confident of higher oil prices in the future, and/or they recieve some benefit. For example, Suncor has moderately-low debt levels and in 2005 didn't internally cover total capital expenditures by about $C1Bn-- but most of the capex was for expansionary purposes -- note $1Bn in additional debt is not a large worry to Suncor. All the firms are likely similiar to Suncor in that they will have to become more indepted in order to increase production, and are likely only to do this if they are ensured of future profitability.
"Agreed, Cantarell is responsible for nearly 60% of Mexico`s production. That`s why I tried a two-stage HL in my last post."
60% is oft cited but obsolete. Cantarell now accounts for roughly 50% of total Crude production.
the production update given by PEMEX is one of the most unusual features of the season. PEMEX has very seldom, if ever, released production numbers ahead of its calendar of publication. Jan #'s should come put the 20th of march.
They certainly are feeling the pressure... drop.
www.sener.gob.mx, the official site for statistical info on production is not working today.
Crude is over 57 bucks. What is Bloombergs comment on its commodity site? "Crude climbs on speculation US Heating fuel, gasoline use will rise"
Not one single word over collapsing Mexico production. Not one word over Saudi cutbacks.
It is still the demand, which changes prices, not the supply.
100% right - pre peak demand determines price.
Post peak - supply will determine price.
The conclusion - we are still pre-peak.
The scissors of supply and demand always have two blades--supply and demand. What makes life complicated is that perceptions rather than realities determine both supply and demand (at least in the short run). Demand volatility dominates in the short run, and I think this generalization will remain true indefinitely.
As the great economist Marshall pointed out, in the long term supply dominates when it comes to determining price.
(Everything makes sense, once you get it figured out.)
Pre-peak demand will have a greater influence on price than supply and post-peak supply will have a greater influence on price than demand?
Maybe.
Perceptions of volatility now focus on demand. Possibly in the future perceptions will focus more on volatility in supply, but I would not bet on this.
Demand is likely to remain highly volatile as far ahead as the eye can see.
actually, worldwide demand does not change much when price is rising at the overall inflation rate, and also does not change much in the short run even as prices rise sharply. SO, I see price as very volatile, say up or down 25% yoy, even as demand and supply don't change more than 1-2%.
Perception is important... we may see falling production from major exporters, say sa, mexico, even russia and kuwait. This would farirly soon affect what people are willing to pay for stocks, both the kind in the spr and shares of e&p companies.
Post peak demand can never be greater than post peak supply. You can not calculate a theoretical demand that would be there if the supply just could satisfy it. The scissors never open post peak unless enormous conservation investments are being made early enough. The scissors can be open pre-peak if someone over-estimates demand and build capacity up too high, in which case "someone" usually goes broke. We had that in the past when oil was marginally profitable.
Post peak supply will simply ramp demand down at any rate supported by geology. The only free variable setting the price in that game is how much people invest in conservation and renewables vs. in the attempt to continue their lifestyle by buying expensive oil. The smart ones will maximise their investments in conservation and reap a long term benefit. The stupid ones will go broke.
If you take what comes from Bloomberg as the only fact.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the recent decline in world crude oil production is because we have consumed half of conventional recoverable crude oil reserves.
Then, let's assume that we had a combination of a worldwide depression and the bird flu this year, and demand falls by 10 to 20 mbpd. Would the supply still determine the price?
If not, why wouldn't the combination of the small decline in world crude oil production and a slight reduction in demand bring oil prices back to 1,000% higher than the Economist Magazine's long term predicted oil price?
In regard to Cantarell, the WSJ article last year stated that the remaining oil column of about 800' was thinning at about 300' per year. My oft stated opinion is that the key difference between Pemex and Saudi Aramco is that Pemex had grudgingly admitted to the decline/crash of its largest oil field.
If Ghawar is declining, not much of a stretch IMO, every oil field in the world that is, or was, producing one mbpd or more is now in decline. So the only question is whether 13 out of 14, or 14 out of 14 super giants are now in decline.
While I am not surprised at any position that Freddy and Hothgor take, I am literally amazed that you and Robert are predicting higher crude oil production when 93% to 100% of all fields that have ever produced one mbpd or more are now in decline.
Waiting for Ghawar
I think Simmon's statement is short and sweet.
If Ghawar has peaked, Saudi Arabia has peaked
If Saudi Arabia has peaked, The World has peaked.
I agree with you and Ron. It really looks like Ghawar has peaked.
It is going to go like Cantarell and OMAN.
From an Econobrowser article on Cantarell that Cynus posted on the open thread:
Samsara - you do realise that whilst Oman lies on the Arabian peninsula, that the oil plays there have nothing at all to do with the main oil plays in KSA, UAE etc. The Oman mountains, which comprise Miocene ophiolites speparate the two provinces.
:-)
While that is an interesting piece of information, And No I didn't realize that, it had nothing to do with why Oman was included in that context.
The reason for including Oman is that it is somewhat a poster child for Advanced Tech/Horizontal Drilling/get it quicker/rapid and steep decline rates.
Like Cantarell's present, and I believe Ghawar's future decline rates.
Nothing do with what geological formation it happened to be from though it was interesting.
John
I am working on a document that I can give to my family and friends to warn them of what is coming. The following points are from what I believe so far about how things will develope. Not arguing about the "when" of it all I think this makes sense as a generalisation of what will happen.
Far off??
3- Peak oil will be fixed in volume but its impact hidden by economic down turn. The point of peak oil is that once it is reached (or caused by the initial recession) the world will never see another era of wealth and growth as was the last half of the 20th century. However most of us will have to deal with the chaos of the transition and decline. The end result will be left to our grand children and their children. Whatever human world results will be of their making, baring a nuclear war or climate change totally re-writing the rules as our last selfish gift to them.
4- The price of oil/gas will drop dramatically as there are dramatic demand drops caused by the recession. Even though there will then be adequate supplies to cover demand oil will remain priced out of common usage for many of us destroyed by the recession. Technological development of alternate and efficient vehicle systems will be reduced to almost nothing. The only development might be in the area of mass transport, transit and railroad restoration as most of us masses will not be able to afford anything else.
5- The price drop will shelve most of the expensive E&P and enhanced recovery projects for years and they will never again be able to catch up production to (2006?) peak levels. The inability to raise capital will severely retard deep water and tar sands development. In the short term there will be plenty of more conventional oil to fill demand. However as the years pass declining production will accelerate, making attempts at economic recovery shallower and shorter.
What exactly is your goal with this document?
If you want your family and friends to believe that you have gone nuts, you will certainly achive that goal with this kind of language.
If, on the other hand, you want to convince your family and friends that it would be good for them, the country and the world if they conserved a little, I would tone it down a little.
There is a better way, though, altogether. If you haven't done it already, replace your car with a hybrid and then tell everyone how often you DON'T have to buy gas.
:-)
The best advice I have found in several years of reading the discussion on the web about PO and GW is "Don't bother arguing with those who won't be convinced." The purpose is to sound the alarm and let the chips fall where they may. In what is coming it doesn't matter if I am considered nuts and I feel that at least people should be told frankly. For my part, at least I will have done that and it helps that I am not trying to get their votes but simply warn them in plain language. There will be a lot of positive "what can I do" preamble to soften the blow. One of those "to dos" is to get politically active so I agree with you that toned down wishy washy language is the way to go there to at least get the discussion started. Suggestions such as plant a tree, drive a hybrid etc are fine feel good things but since the first disaster will be economic, not PO or GW, it is more important to get rid of debt and be ready to try and survive with little or no income. Adding $30K of debt for a Prius or a solar house the bank will get doesn't seem sensible (but if you can pay cash it would be great). Making your paid for Corolla (at 6L/100km) go another few hundered thousand kilometers makes way more sense both for personal debt and saving the energy cost of making the replacement. Best of luck! As your user name implies, there is no set solution and we will find infinite possibilities.
You are not arguing with someone who is not convinced. I know about the problem for decades.
The problem with "The purpose is to sound the alarm and let the chips fall where they may." is that it is known NOT to work. Everyone who ever ran for local office can tell you that people do not want to hear negative news. They will listen to the very same thing, though, if you package it right.
For instance, it is a bad thing to say that there will be a recession. You can say instead that "The migration to renewable energy will create millions of jobs worldwide.". The latter is true, by the way. Nobody knows for sure that there will be a recession. So not only is the positive message better as a vehicle to explain the problem, it is also more correct, because we are seeing the job creation already, while we haven't seen the recession, yet.
"There will be a lot of positive "what can I do" preamble to soften the blow"
Most people will not even know what a preamble is, let alone read the rest of the document if it is more than a page long. The rule is: talk about whatever you like but never over three minutes. Your message delivery has to be short and get to the point.
"One of those "to dos" is to get politically active"
Good point, but again, you will not get anyone to be politically active once you tell them that the world is falling. The younger people might just say "So we are fucked and its all your (the parents) fault!". The next thing you know is that your son or daughter are pregnant (your son with another girl, of course) because they decided to have unprotected sex.
Look... what I get from your language is that you are scared. A politician (and that is what you are trying to be) can do a lot of things, but he or she can not show that they are scared. You might get short term relief from transfering your fears onto your family, but that won't be helpful to either you or them. The first thing YOU need to to is to replace your fears with an objective approach that allows YOU to develop strategies for others. You are not there, yet.
"Suggestions such as plant a tree, drive a hybrid etc are fine feel good things but since the first disaster will be economic,"
GW is here. The world never looked better economically. Obviously you are wrong about this already. If you plant a tree, you actually help the economy (your local home and garden store will make a buck). If you buy a hybrid, the economy will be happy and so will you be when gas goes beyond $3/gallon. Your pattern of thinking that this happens first and that happens later and whatever you believe happens first must be addressed first is incorrect. You can have win-wins in life. If you want to solve this one, you better start looking for them because the wins-loses ones are not going to cut it.
"Adding $30K of debt for a Prius or a solar house the bank will get doesn't seem sensible"
If you are already in debt, you are not the kind of person who is going to make a difference. At best, you can try to ride this out. I would suggest you get a better job first and you consolidate your credit cards and start getting clean first before you try to save the world. My suggestion to get a Prius was meant for those who can buy one for cash.
Don't listen to IP.
Scare them.
Not sure about all various points you are arguing and I dasnt' parse them out either.
I find it simpler to just print out an image of the visual from Olduvai Gorge and show them that,in full color.
The one with the Neanderthal walking up to the spike and then walking away from it. The astronaut near the top. We on the top looking down at the abyss.
If they can't understand that , then perhaps your wasting your time.
Words can be debated forever. The image settles it.
Scare them then go stock up on cornmeal,pasta and rice. You'll feel better for it and tell them you won't be sharing. That might really get their attention. If not you will get the last laugh.
airdale...some TIC...some serious...some whatever..
P.S. If they are not the type to do what needs to be done..(lazy azzes) then tell them nothing. Does that work? Exceptions for cute womenfolk of course.
The whole 'gorge' and 'cliff' and 'plunge' theories are just that: theories. Theories can be proven or disproven. The Olduvai Cliff theory has yet to be proven. Don't pretend it has been.
Hello Hothgor,
That's true. Proof will come in its own time. I don't imagine that there's a utopia in humankind's future, but who knows?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Two dumbshits, Hothie and IP...eating bananas while strolling off to watch the sunrise.
Still those oneliner aphorisms they are so fond of.
"Its only a theory."
"Theories can be proven or disproven."
"Proof will come in its own time."
Heres a famous one for you:
"Stupid is as stupid does."
"Want a chocolate?"
Moo?
I would have omitted the question mark.
dmathew1:
I thought you did:
and
not forgetting
and finally (saving the best for last)
As I recall from yesterday, a poster commented that we should be mature and address your arguments, rather than make farmyard noises.
I remain sceptical....I mean Mooooooooo!
Hello MCrab,
You listen well. I am impressed by cows that listen. But if you think that I am going to engage in a religious debate with a cow, you're seriously mistaken. Go back to your mooing. Mooing serves you well.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
>4- The price of oil/gas will drop dramatically as there are dramatic demand drops caused by the recession.
Well that depends if Oil remains fungible. I suspect at some point exporters will start to husband thier remaining reserves to make them last longer and only export enough to support their very basic needs (food, and replacement parts for critical systems, ie water, sewage, etc). I can't predict when this will happen, but its all but certian to occur.
Beside Peak Oil there is a Peak fresh water issue. The Midwest is heavly dependant on aquifers which are rapidly being depleted. The cost of food is bound to get much more expensive even after the Ethanol boondangle ends do to reduced water for agraculture.
*On a side note, KSA has been working on a project to increase its agraculture to eliminate its need to import food.
Most of the Industrial world is in terrible financial shape. A flood of retires from the the age of boomers is about to hit gov't finances (not just the US, but in Europe and in some parts of Asia).
Hello TODers,
http://www.mexidata.info/id1233.html
---------------------------------------
A Trial for Mexico: Free Markets or Fair Prices
The growing demand for corn in the making of ethanol has caused a price surge. And this month the effect spread to Mexican low-income families as the cost of tortillas shot skyward.
To clamp a lid on their indignation just days after they were saddled with a minimum wage increase that barely covers inflation, President Felipe Calderón intervened.
Last week he promised to release government corn stocks at prices well below the market, and pressured the states to impose an 8.5-pesos-per-kilo price cap. Tortillas, at least, must be affordable to all.
The tortilla incident shows that even a rightwing government can be persuaded to improve fairness instead of allowing markets to determine all prices.
It’s a classic illustration of society’s tradeoff between market efficiency and social equality. As tortilla consumers know, efficiency isn’t always fair.
---------------------------------------
From this link:
http://news.bostonherald.com/international/americas/view.bg?articleid=18...
--------------------------------------
A free-market advocate, Calderon has said he does not want to return to direct price controls enforced by many former Mexican presidents.
On Jan. 18, Calderon signed an accord with business organizations to try to limit tortilla prices to about 35 cents a pound. But many of the independent tortilla sellers have ignored the rate, essentially a gentlemen’s agreement with no legal backing.
High tortilla prices put some Mexicans in danger of being malnourished. The poor eat an average of 14 ounces of tortillas daily, giving them 40 percent of their protein, according to Amanda Galvez, who runs a nutrition research institute at Mexico’s National Autonomous University.
With the new prices, workers earning the minimum wage of about $4 a day could spend a third of their earnings on tortillas for their family. ”Some people can switch to more unhealthy alternatives. Others just go without,” Galvez said.
---------------------------------
Seems like the first article was just political posturing because the second article seems to suggest that tortilla prices are still on the way up. It will be interesting to see what the 'Tortilla March' ongoing now in the Zocalo will bring. Obviously, the truly hungry won't have the energy to be marching anywhere.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
It is truly amazing to see a group of people so convinced the End of the World is arriving, and somehow its all America's fault.
Sorry to disappoint you.
America will not need any foreign oil within in a decade and half. It will still choose to do so for cost reasons though.
The faster you can drive up prices artificially on some basis other than supply costs, the faster the substitution will come. Eighty percent of oil is used for transport and 90% of that demand is for ground transport. Electrification, partially or fully, of the that ground transport is coming, as the technology of several different kinds, will all compete and take their place, and replace petroleum for that application. I don't care if it is BEVs, HEVs, PHEVs, PHEVs using ICEs, or PHEVs with ultracaps, or some form of chemical battery. May they all compete and the best technology win. As is the way the real world's works, it will be some eclectic combination, I assume.
Long term (a decade or two), Fusion plants will be building all over the world. ITER is the LAST scientific experiment and the FIRST engineering exercise in constructing a practical fusion electricity generating plant.
Remember, it took only fifteen years from Yankee Atomic until the US had 10-12% of its electricity produced by fission Nuclear plants. And those plants in spite of Green mythology, (which I helped to create to my eternal shame, as a founder of the UCS), were pretty carefully designed, and with some exceptions, by and large, pretty well built.
They are better designed and built now, and even more carefully regulated. That is what we original critics desired. Before it was converted to a religious fanaticism of the Left, as a hypothetical way to power. Chanting No Nukes! doesn't require any more thought, than yelling Seig Heil!
The safety aspects of fission is extreme; fusion by contrast is simple. Plant complexity for fission is difficult because of the Safety needs; for fusion its plant operational complexity is simple. Although the underlying theory of Fusion is thousands of times more difficult, once understood and accomplished, it is no more difficult than any other technology.
As both a Scientist and an Engineer, I know that the decade long delay in ITER by the Greenies, actually made all in the Fusion community more certain than ever, that it will succeed. Fusion researchers forced to utilize smaller machines, made such substantial progress, that virtually all the scientific answers have ALREADY been answered that were to be posed to ITER.
ITER will meet,or more correctly confirm, its first 10 years of experimental objectives in about its first ten months of operation. then we will proceed to actually operate a fusion plant in a near steady state situation; the only parts that really need the size scale of ITER. The follow on will be real power plants, generating electricity rather than simply heating a lake with around 1000 megawatts of Heat.
Since matter is never truly created nor destroyed, and Energy will be clean and inexhaustible, there will be little concern about other materials. Just as there is no concern today, as commodity prices for all materials are less than they were two decades ago; except for temporary concerns about petroleum and some forms of usable energy.
Did I mention that the mystical fear of "Global Warming" will dissipate when Oil use for fuel declines. Then CO2 is rapidly scrubbed from the atmosphere in but a few years as the annual ocean flux is about 40% of the atmosphere's entire CO2.
Since the environmental wars have almost all been won in the developed world, save this mystical fear of "Global Warming", I wonder what the leftists who post here, will try next try to use to obtain interest in their dated and proven impossible economic proposals, and methods for organizing humanity?
Welcome to TOD Stas Peterson!
You may went to read this story about the ITER experiment:
Will Nuclear Fusion Fill the Gap Left by Peak Oil?
Hi K,
Thanks for the link. I'm just curious what your take on it is...(?)
Khebab,
Hello,
It was an interesting read, but much of it is well known to me. Sometimes people are too close to the problem.
Having spent a career in and out of power systems, I think I have a little better perspective than most to assess where Fusion research actually is today.
JET, and TFTR and the Japanese tokamak JT60? in its various rebuilds, are undersized for real excess generation of Fusion Energy. The important thing was that for short moments they could, and did produce, not only "break even", but multiples of the energy input as measured by the output.
Q = 1 or an Energy gain of unity, AKA "break even", is getting out as much energy as you put in. It was a long sought goal ever since the early '50s.
They did succeed before ITER. JET and TFTR produced Q as high as 4 to 10. That is for short moments, they got out 4 to 10 times as much energy as they used to start the process. Larger ITER would be designed to do it for longer times. Lots of Fusion occurred. At JET, they made almost 16 megawatts of Fusion energy.
In the time it has taken to resurrect the international cooperation that collapsed with American withdrawal of funding then, the fusion researchers still turned to the problems that remained. It has become routine even in small reactors to attain a High Level Mode of plasma confinement. This was a long term goal for ITER, and has has already been accomplished.
There were things still to do on a scientific basis back when ITER was first proposed. Several of the instabilities encountered were still not theoretically well understood. A decade of research identified many if not most of remaining the instabilities and what to do about them.
A method to sustain the reaction indefinitely, needed the central coil to be replaced as an initiator. Work on the NSTX and several others machines have found the initiator methods needed. That was a task that was to be a central problem for ITER to solve.
Edge Limited Mode disruptions yielded to understanding and control in just the last year to researchers at D-III in San Diego. That was a another long term research goal for the ITER. These ELM disruptions prematurely destroy the divertor and the first wall sooner than desired. They also cool the plasma. But these ELM discharges have now been essentially removed as a problem with a simple active control coil. The control method is even better since its prevents the loss of heat that cools the plasma.
Methods to heat the plasma were also to be targets of ITER research. In the hiatus, several different auxiliary heating systems all were tried, and they all worked and all contributed to various degrees.
Essentially the plasma was heated by Microwave-oven type heating; it worked at several different frequencies stimulating ions, electrons or both, in various locations, at the center of the plasma or at the edge were tried and proved out at several reactors.
Injecting accelerated then neutralized beams of "hot" atoms into the plasma as a heating method were incorporated.
Most of all, the plasmas started to be understood and computer codes were developed to predict responses at were checked and empirically corrected. Researchers tested and understood what the response to active controls would be. Add a little heat, cool a certain portion, alter the magnetic bottle in subtle fashions, stretch it here, shrink it a bit there all contributed to better confinement.
So confinement increased and temperatures climbed, even in the too small reactors that researchers had to use, as there was nothing else.
In some aspects fusion energy is a function of size scale. If a Tokamak reactor is just physically larger, it works better. An ion to be fused is just physically farther from the exterior, and can stay contained longer, so its chance of fusing is higher.
That is the real reason for the larger ITER. I do assume that some new instabilities might be discovered in a "burning plasma".
Even then I doubt that they will be show stoppers. Here's why.
The fact that we have entered the "burning plasma" regime and stayed there with TFTR, JT 60 and JET only momentary, but for time frames usually longer than most instabilities need to manifest themselves. We haven't really seen any that might occur as yet. If slowly developing instabilities do occur, I am confident that we can and will find them to be solvable.
HHFW heating. Neutral beam heating, CHI heating, and others have been the names for the heating methods described above.
Methods to stabilize the plasma under dynamic control had to be created; a decade of computer advances has made the job much easier.
When ITER was first proposed Superconducting magnets were a expensive novelty. A decade later and new higher temperature superconducting magnets have come along. Fusion researchers have built smaller, so called "PoP" machines and "PE" larger reactors with superconducting magnets. The state of the art advanced even without ITER. When ITER was originally conceived, the building of Superconducting magnets was a goal to be learned. Is still difficult but the job is not so experimental anymore.
When ITER was proposed, there was an experimental program extending over a decade or more, to "solve" these problems. But in the hiatus, these problems are now essentially solved; so all they have to do is confirm the solutions, in and on the larger scale of ITER. About ten months instead of ten years, ought to do it. So cut out a TEN YEARS of schedule before Fusion is ready.
When first proposed, an issue of how to make the actual follow on reactors out of materials that would not become too embrittled under neutron bombardment. A nice to have feature would be to prevent the physical components of the structure from not becoming too radioactive while in operation. This nice to have feature, might make the reactor itself recyclable in as short a time as a few months instead of as long as 25 to 50 years. (By comparison fission produced lots of materials highly radioactive for a few thousand years.)
Time has essentially removed that as a problem. If you construct the facing materials of Vanadium steel, or even better silicon carbide, instead of stainless steel, it essentially stays almost non-radioactive. Over the last two decades the science and the technology of working with alloys and non metallic construction materials has advanced.
An impossible possibility then, it would be expensive but doable today, and probably routine in a few years. You only need several tens of square feet of these materials.
Another attractive possibility is that the first wall be a wall of liquid Lithium. At PPL a decades of research as showed that melted Lithium metal can serve as the first wall where the plasma or Fusion neutrons hit it. Lithium prevents spalling of first wall and spalled materials contaminating the plasma. An uncontaminated plasma is confined better.
But in the final analysis, I could specify the construction materials in about thirty seconds, and it would be orders of magnitude less of a lingering radioactive waste problem then we face now, in the fission reactors already constructed and operating. Why build an IFMIF when real experience, on real power reactors, will allow the next fusion reactors to be constructed of both cheaper and non lingering radioactivity materials?
So you can toss out ANOTHER TEN YEARS and lots of feather bedded engineering research in an dedicated IFMIF facility, before fusion is here.
I actually expect that we will be designing the first Fusion power plants by the early 2020's (so-called DEMO & PROTO) and several will probably be operational by 2030. Government likes feather bedding, and I have no doubt that an IFMIF will be built but it won't really matter. The real answer to the schedule for Fusion, is provided by the advance budgeting of the DOE that is already planning on money for a exploitation of fusion breakthroughs,"just in case", in the 2020s time frame.
When the ITER international cooperation died because of a combination of Greenie greed, and lack of political will, and mostly incompetence in the late Clintonian years, I was thoroughly convinced that Mankind had lost a great opportunity.
I could go into the politics of the time, but its not really important, exactly who shot John; when, and why.
It happened.
Bush to his enormous credit, negotiated and recreated the international project. ITER is the largest co-operative effort undertaken by a group of Nations is the World's history. It took six years, but he did it. It may be his most enduring accomplishment.
This is interesting and you are obviously very knowledgeable about this, but I don't for a minute buy your optimistic prediction of a practical fusion reactor ever becoming a reality in the time frame you suggest (a couple of decades), if ever. Being able to achieve a fusion reaction in short spurts is a lot different than maintaining nearly constant fusion over many months or years. Even if a sustained reaction can be achieved, the damage to the reactor components from the intense neutron bombardment will be severe. For that matter, how do you sufficiently shield workers from the neutron flux, especially over the long term? I've worked with neutron sources and I know they are to be treated with great caution. I don't buy your claim of non-lingering radioactivity. I don't think they can shield from the neutrons sufficiently well to prevent various reactor components from becoming highly radioactive. (The components can't all be built of vanadium steel and silicon carbide which, as you know, don't shield neutrons well at all.) Even if all of the technical problems are miraculously solved, I'm highly skeptical that a large fusion power plant could be operated economically. I believe the funds that are being funneled into fusion energy pipe dreams should be applied to more sane technologies that we know actually work.
Hi Stas,
An interesting overview of some of the engineering obstacles that need to be surmounted before fusion becomes a commercial reality (I hope you're not naive enough to believe that free fuel equals free electricity for the end user!). It's over 20 years since I last visited the JET site, and I was unaware of just what a success it had been. The following assertion that you made in your post was especially eye-catching:
JET and TFTR produced Q as high as 4 to 10. That is for short moments, they got out 4 to 10 times as much energy as they used to start the process. Larger ITER would be designed to do it for longer times. Lots of Fusion occurred. At JET, they made almost 16 megawatts of Fusion energy.
That puts you in disagreement with the statements on the JET website, the ITER website, and good old Wikipedia, none of which claims anything better than 70% for JET (JET, surprisingly, fudges the issue with the words the fusion power is approximately the same as the applied heating power). And of course that is just the plasma energy balance - no account taken of magnetic field power, fluids management, HVAC and the coffee machine in the control room. IIRC the JET project involved special mods to the governors on one (or two?) of the generating units at Didcot power station, (coal-fired, located a few kilometres away), to supply the unusual demand profile of a JET pulse - and those puppies are rated at 500MW apiece. See, I can bludgeon the reader with insider knowledge as well!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JET mentions 70% in the context of 16MW fusion power, same as your post.
http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq3.html
http://www.iter.org/a/index_faq.htm
Can you account for the discrepancy in estimates of Q? Why would the organizations involved want to keep the good news secret? A petro-socialist conspiracy to deny the world the benefits of free energy, perhaps?
If I may digress into the personal for a moment: would I be correct in inferring from your general writing style that you are an enthusiast of the fragrant Ms. Rand?
Cheers,
PUD
Oh really. That's why it takes funding from virtually all the powers that be just to set up a single one.
I didn't know the Greenies did have that much power all around the globe. Or China just likes smog, I suppose. Japan just imports oil to do Iran a favor. Russia just wasn't interested in high-tech.
Sure! Species extinction is halted, no even reversed! Exhaust fumes now cure the common cold instead of risking to make you sick! DDT turned out to be harmless after all, asbestos-related cancer were an april's fool joke, the Brazilian rain forest is cutting down acres of lumberjack per day, and topsoil continues to pile up everywhere!
Finding the money for, and building a $12 billion dollar experiment, is completely different from constructing a power plant that will earn a return on investment,while generating electricity and or Hydrogen.
If you don't know that, there is really no hope for you, as your Socialism knows no bounds.
Clinton and his Administration was interested ONLY in surviving. They would take no chances alienating anyone.
Because some Greenies wanted to divert ITER funding to research on pick any pet project: reforestation, wind power, wave power, solar power, yada, yada yada, the support was peeled off for each pet project, one at a time. In fairness, there were some conservatives, who object on principle to funding International projects.
This unholy Cabal saw that they were pushing on a non-resisting rope, and other money grubbers politicians like gathering Sharks, jumped in too, for the feeding frenzy.
The politically incompetent and timid Clintonistas didn't really give a damn, and didn't fight for ITER, other than making polite speeches.
Clinton and his crew were ultimately phonies; if they had twisted a few arms; called in a few chits; done the normal political things, ITER funding would have continued. But they didn't. Without America to pay its share, the international consortium collapsed. I was there; I saw it.
Oh my you unmasked me. I'm an evil socialist, bent on enslaving all reasonable, enlighted, free-thinking, objective, tolerant, open-minded, freedom-loving, rational capitalist, of which you yourself happen to be a prime example. No, you said it yourself in other posts: there were significant problems, and now those have been solved or at least can be expected to be solved, and funding resumes. Pretty normal, don't you think?
While you, in turn, would have no qualms diverting funds from their pet projects for your pet project. But you are reasonable, and they are socialists (gasp!).
Drop your grudges. They wear you down.
Where are you going to get the tritium for these reactors coming in ten years?
There is enough Tritium set aside for ITER, and even DEMO too, but likely ITER will breed some, as needed. Lots of ITER experiments are Lithium blanket engineering questions.
Certainly DEMO and PROTO will be self sufficient. They don't need much. Where do you think we got the Tritium for Super in the first place? From non-CANDU reactors that is certain.
Holy crap! You've been drinking the Kool-Aid. Fusion power is not a practical energy source for the foreseeable future (and probably never). It is a pipe dream. ITER is an expensive science experiment. Even if fusion energy were achieved we would still have the nuclear waste problem, because fusion produces lots of neutrons which transmute the surrounding materials and make them radioactive. By the way, I'm also a scientist and engineer, and I worked for over 15 years in the nuclear field.
Do we have fission power plants now?
Do they have embrittlement and induced radioactive problems of their reactor components?
Do we live with those order of magnitude greater problems?
I have said more than once, that ITER is the LAST Fusion experiment and the FIRST engineering exercise to design and build a Fusion power plant.
As my post revealed there is a whole hell of a lot less Science experiment than was originally envisioned, since the mid eighties when first conceived and today, when it is finally being built.
Have you looked at the quantities of nuclear waste and their radio-toxicity?
They are tiny and not long lived. Yes I 'd love a non radioactive 1He3 + p reaction, but that for later. In the 21st Century its the answer to the petroleum problem and the scarcity of primary Energy sources.
Hello TODers,
Mexico Update:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR200701...
-------------------------------------------------------
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through Mexico's capital on Wednesday night to protest at a surge in tortilla prices that has put new President Felipe Calderon under intense pressure.
Protesters held up ears of corn and complained that Calderon, a conservative accused by his leftist rival of stealing last July's presidential election, was failing to protect them against foreign market forces.
Calderon isn't just a thief, he's a murderer because he wants us to die of hunger," Elvira Acevedo, 62, said at the march.
---------------------------------------------------------
Other Google links estimated the Zocalo crowds at 75,000 people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiapas: campesinos protest deforestation
Hundreds of inhabitants of the Sierra de Chiapas blocked trucks and machinery transporting wood from the zone, and initiated a protest vigil in front of the municipal presidency in Motozintla in protest of the timber companies which are exploiting the resouces without any plan for forest recovery.
"We can not go along with this indifference of the government, which is not only failing to realize reforestation programs, but is favoring the timber companies," said Lucio Roblero.
But if the lack of reforestation continues, the next rainy season could bring total destruction to the zone of the Sierra and floods to the lowlands," he warned.
According to the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Forestry Commission, the 43 rivers that flow to the coast in Chiapas begin in the Sierra, which is losing vegetation at a rate of nine percent each year.
---------------------------------------
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3025
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Cheap Oil Is Over
One category of oil production data is over looked by people. On shore production of crude oil worldwide had peaked since 1980 at proximately 58 million barrels per day. The chart is on “Hamilton: the eclectic city”. I am sorry that I cannot link it here. Now, 23% of the worldwide crude supply has come from offshore production.
It was offshore production that rescued us and beat up OPEC in 1980s. Its production has gone up and up till now. If the ongoing oil crisis can be avoided, the only hope lies on offshore oil production.
From 1999 to 2006, 140 big new oil fields have been discovered worldwide. Among them, 127 are offshore, and 50 are deepwater. Even CERA predicted that from 2005 to 2010, deepwater production will increase by 3 folds.
But offshore oil is expensive. Because its exploitation cost is high and operation cost is also very high. Although I don not have a statistic number to back up this theory, I know it is just logical.
You can tell some owners sitting by a well in Texas installed 50 years ago, maybe it is wood framed well. No matter. As long as he can get 20 barrels a day, it is good business. Offshore is a totally different story. Three months ago the news spread out that North Sea operators will gradually decommission 40% of its production installation in coming decades. North Sea peaked for less than five years. They are going to abandon wells. Why? Because to any single well, a small volume of daily production is not worthy for them to keep a million dollar platform and 100 crews staying there.
In the Gulf of Mexico, it is the same situation. Some of the wells damaged by hurricanes are abandoned, probably because these abandoned wells pasted the peak volumes. A lot of oil is left in them.
Only one thing can make these operators change their mind. That is when the oil price reaches $80 and stays there.
CERA expects that in five years, deepwater production can increase by three folds. The market doesn’t believe in that. If you say the easy oil is controlled by the OPEC or national governments, the western oil majors can still reach the deepwater projects. But they will go very slowly on that.
Because their share holders say no, in 1970s and 80s, the majors had a PE ratio 30s. Now it is only 11 for XOM, 7 for COP. When they give you 30s, it means that they want you all out to drill. They believe you can increase production so the future profits. When the ratio is at 7, investors don’t believe the company can grow. But, when the ratio is at 30s, the green light is on for the majors to issue new shares to drill wells. At 7, no money no honey.
Your comment that Cheap Oil is over, is a threat meant to scare children like the "Boogeyman".
An intelligent man is not frightened, as a matter of fact, I am more secure and sanguine than ever. Substitution, Mankind's consistent response throughout all history to shortages of whatever commodity, has all the more time to adapt.
In the Seventies and Eighties it was hard to see a substitute for petroleum in the transport function. Today forced by artificial prices, the answers for oil substitution are becoming apparent.
SynFuels a '70s answer, was a banana peel waiting a price decline to easily destroy. Exploitation of heavy oils, and oil sands are much lesser, (but still exposed technologies). But are at least adopted on hard headed cost basis, unlike the wholly uneconomic but political basis for the Carteresque, SynFuels program. Once again a Leftist un-economic system collapses, in the face of hard headed, real world economics.
Automobile electrification will continue apace, even if Oil prices collapse to $5.00 a barrel.
From an engineering perspective, an electric or hybrid vehicle is intrinsically cheaper to manufacture, once the initial tooling costs are amortized, as a conventional auto. The tooling and infrastructure are being constructed. Electric AC, water pumps, power steering, power brakes and electric motor and battery factories are all available; and factories to produce more of them, are now built. More can be and are being constructed and that is happening, on many continents.
The operating costs benefits of electrified autos, aside from any others will force acceptance and adoption. Environmental benefits are a pure bonus, even if not really needed, any longer. The modern heavily emission controlled ICE automobile, has a virtually breathable exhaust and in some polluted third world cesspools, that exhaust would actually be preferable to the ambient air.
Fusion generated electricity, will similarly come on as the technology of choice for cost reasons alone. Other aspects such as environmental benefits, will likewise be a bonus.
The truth is that supplier cost bears no relation to current prices for petroleum. Cartelization has been fairly effective for periods of several years at a time, for close to three decades. Oil does not cost $30, $50 or $70 dollars a barrel to produce, in the sands of Arabia; more like 30, 50 or 70 cents per barrel.
You are correct in the observation that increasingly Oil is produced from offshore sources, but I think you ought to remember that the entire US Atlantic, Pacific and Alaskan coasts are currently off limits for essentially political, pseudo-environmental reasons, primarily.
In the Caribbean, I think that all the Florida coast is off limits, as well. Only the Texas and Louisiana coastlines produce US offshore oil; that could change by a stroke of the pen, if America is pushed too far by an economic downturn.
But I don't think that is in the cards, at all.
To a degree, I'm sympathetic with your optimistic take on our energy future. However, this statement is baloney:
Fusion energy is a pipe dream. There is no reason to believe that it will be an economical power source in the foreseeable future.
Is it possible you meant fission, i.e., conventional nuclear energy?
Hi Stas,
I'm glad to see your comments, in view of your work at the lab.
When you say "...is meant to scare children...", I rather read his sentence as a prelude to the point that offshore production costs more.(That's how I took it.)
Matt Simmons (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/) apparently believes we are facing an oil production infrastructure crisis, (as part of overall crisis), which appears to be very connected to the fact of offshore (water corrosion, etc.) and the higher maintenance required. To quote: "Industry observers estimate that 40% of existing offshore North Sea oil and natural gas installations will be considered for decommissioning or abandonment in the next decade, rising to 85% over next 20 years." My take on it is he's asking for some positive action to be taken soon.
I'm interested in hearing more about these points:
Re: "Today forced by artificial prices, the answers for oil substitution are becoming apparent."
What answers do you see?
Re: "Automobile electrification will continue apace, even if Oil prices collapse to $5.00 a barrel."
How do you see this happening? Where will the money come from?
Re: "Fusion generated electricity, will..."
What is the time frame you envision for this to occur? Do you have any ideas about how to deal with the scenario of a beginning of an irreversible decline in oil production beginning say, today, one year from now, and so forth?
If you have the Olympian perspective, over the course of the 20th century, 40% of humanity were able to afford a lifestyle superior to that of the few Kings in the world in the previous centuries. The 21st Century will find methods to incorporate the other 60% of humanity and they will.
The question ultimately to provide this lifestyle is the control of Energy. We are clumsy in its use. There are warts and limits on the primitive technologies in current use. They simply won't suffice to incorporate the other 60% of humanity. These technologies might not even continue to be able to supply the current 40% of the Human population.
Oil isn't Peaking today and even if it did, the slide downward would be more truncated than the way up but still that might last for a century or more. And we need only a decade or at most two and the game completely changes.
Peak Oil is a non-sequitor. It doesn't include so called Heavy oils as in Venezuela, that rank with Saudi Arabian reserves, it doesn't include the Tar sands reserves such as Alberta, that dwarf Saudi reserves, and doesn't include ultimately the Oil Shales that the socialists tried to exploit uneconomically with SynFuels.
Ultimately it is simply a question of cost of liquid hydrocarbons, not an availability issue for the next couple of hundred years, at least. Higher costs only encourages substitution, and that is coming, anyway.
Oil is a transport issue. We simple didn't have reasonable alternatives to liquid hydrocarbons for air vehicles or ground transport.
Sea vessels could return to solid hydrocarbons but it will be more convenient to continue to supply liquids for that application. Likewise for the air vehicles, if we could remove the 70% of fossil fuel wastage for grounds transport.
The hard knot was and is ground transport. Just the sheer size of it. Moving goods and people about is not easily addressed without cars and trucks. Antique technologies like animal powered vehicles, canal boats or railroad trains, won't suffice.
We could hope for battery powered vehicles but until the last few years, a scientific breakthrough had to happen.
Scientific breakthroughs simply can't be forecasted. They might happen tomorrow or Never.
Scientific Breakthroughs are a completely different problem than engineering improvements. You can predict engineering progress; it was a 100% certainty when Kennedy said we should go to the moon, that it would happen if the political will to spend the monetary inputs were continued. He did, we did, and Aldrin and Armstrong landed the Spaceship
Eagle on the Moon, in Mare Tranquillatus.
But no matter how much Leonardo da Vinci may have predicted and tried to design flying machines, the scientific breakthroughs did not exist. All the gold in King Midas's treasury would not have sufficed.
We are beyond the scientific breakthrough stage with the electrification of ground transport. The batteries using LiIon will suffice. The costs are not exorbitant and will become cheaper than the liquid hydrocarbon vehicles. The factories to drive mass production costs down, have already been authorized, funded, and under construction. Its as certain as falling off a log.
We are beyond the scientific breakthrough stage with Fusion power,as well. It is much more analogous to the state of affairs when Kennedy made his moon speech. Put in the inputs, turn the crank, and out pops the fusion power plant.
The combination of these two technologies that no longer require problematic scientific breakthroughs, make the future a lot clearer to see. Despite the stupidity of "Global Warming" Cassandras, there simply isn't very much deleterious effect from a warmer, wetter, more fecund, and richer world.
That might be deleterious effects, in a few thousand years if continued, but the Peak Oil discussions here say that is impossible to continue for a millenia or two, and who am I to argue? It would take several millenia to raise the sea levels much, and there is simply no other bad effect from global warming.
You can even make the argument that CO2 levels will be falling in the atmosphere in a couple of decades. Even the most fatuous GW Cassandras, need a few hundred years of warming to see much bad happening. Virtuslly asll the other eenvironmental issues have already been resolved or well on the way to resolution.
So, buddy, which one will it be?
The majors' reserves are in decline, tho higher prices mask it by boosting profits. THe market is aware of this. Personally I look for small us e&p's with rising reserves. P/e's are higher, but thats ok as long as they keep rising reserves/production/net. I like ard/gpor (oil) and gmxr (ng.)
Dragon,
Your discussion of the onshore/offshore oil production is very interesting -- I am trying to track down the link "Hamilton: the eclectic city" -- but can't locate it through Google, do you have any more reference information on these production figures?
http://www.odac-info.org/bulletin/documents/Hamilton-ElectricCity.pdf
Hello TODers,
I think we need benchmarks to monitor to see if Mexico catches the ZIMBABWE SYNDROME or moves proactively to prevent the worst. I am not a demographer or actuary, but this is a first attempt to foster a discussion of what metrics would be best to see how Mexico responds to postPeak adaptation. Recall how the Hirsch Report advises for a couple of decades minimum for the US to paradigm shift--Mexico unfortunately will have to do it much faster with a lot less resources.
This link has photos and text of hardship in Mexico's Copper Canyon among the Tarahumara Indians:
http://www.coppercanyon.org/
------------------------------------
For the last ten years, this region has experienced a record drought and has resulted in widespread famine among the most remote Tarahumaras. As naturalists, humanitarians, journalists and eco tourism promoters, we have delivered more than 160 tons of critically needed famine relief and perhaps we have saved hundreds of these very rare and endangered tribal people.
The drought conditions have been front-page news in more than 150 stories in all of the regional newspapers, both in the USA and Mexico. Unfortunately, very little coverage has been given to this unfolding humanitarian and environmental crisis. There are perhaps less than 5,000 of these most traditional and worthy Indians remaining.
----------------------------------
Recall my previous links on other indigenous natives in Mexico. I think keeping an eye on those at the very bottom of the humanimal foodchain may be a possible 'canary in the coal mine'.
From the CIA World Factbook on Mexico:
--------------------------------------------
scarcity of hazardous waste disposal facilities; rural to urban migration; natural fresh water resources scarce and polluted in north, inaccessible and poor quality in center and extreme southeast; raw sewage and industrial effluents polluting rivers in urban areas; deforestation; widespread erosion; desertification; deteriorating agricultural lands; serious air and water pollution in the national capital and urban centers along US-Mexico border; land subsidence in Valley of Mexico caused by groundwater depletion.
note: the government considers the lack of clean water and deforestation national security issues
---------------------------------------------
From the World Bank [Mexico statistics]:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/hnpstats/HNPSummary/countryData/GetShowData...
------------------------------
Prevalence of child malnutrition--underweight (% of children under age 5) 1999[last available year] = 8%
Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000) 2004 28/1,000
---------------------------------------
Also, recall that remittances is the second biggest factor in the Mex. economy after oil. A severe US recession, combined with Mexico having to sell lesser qtys of oil for fewer dollars would be a sledgehammer blow to their infinite growth economy.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Not a single post in this thread commented on Mexicos announcement today of a 6% January increase in production )other than Khebab and Euan). I sometimes wonder if posters on this site want Peak Oil to be now and choose to ignore bits of evidence to the contrary. Im an agnostic on that, but find it curious, on a discussion about Cantarell, what to make of the PEMEX press release.
In my view, there is too much noise in month on month figures as they can be influenced by a variety of factors. It is only when you can plot the monthly data over a several year timespan that I would feel comfortable about making statements about long-term behavior.
It is interesting nonetheless to see the data, but I am really nothing more than an armchair quarterback in this regard.
In my own view, it probably is better for peak to be sooner rather than later. A later peak implies that humanity will dig itself even deeper into a hole and consume even more oil. A peak that is soon implies that we will have to confront the issue starting from 85 million bpd instead of 100 million bpd.
Hello Nate Hagens,
Just speaking for myself: I sure don't want Peak now, but I sure want to get started on mitigation along with Hirsch & Bedzneck, Heinberg, Simmons, Stern....and countless others.
Do you have any idea if Mexico has their own version of 'The Hirsch Report' or SAIC? When Calderon's best economic advisors can only come up with truly stupid ideas like taxing the poor on soda pop sales to try and makeup for Pemex's losses--my heart sinks. Mexico needs serious long-term mitigation planning for what lies ahead.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Nate, as per Khebab's original statement "Still, this last estimate put Mexico right back on the low logistic curve on Figure 5 below, so even with this news the [Cantarell] decline is still quite apparent." I don't wish PO on the world, would just like Australian politicians to get ready and help prepare our communities for it whenever it happens.
A 6% recovery is insignificant in the context of the previous year's 25% decline. It's also a one-off - Pemex themselves say it was the result of fixing a technical problem. So considered against the backdrop of the ongoing geological decline it has no weight, carries no message.
Who wants Peak Oil? It's going to suck. There is a big difference between expecting it and hoping for it.
Hi G,
"There is a big difference between expecting it and hoping for it."
Yes, thanks. Also, a big difference: a strong desire to understand, to cover all the bases (in understanding)...to take some positive steps.
And then there's "cognitive dissonance", and and the need for sanity for oneself and everyone else.
Nate,
The UK just showed a monthly rebound in production. Does that mean that it has reversed its long term decline of 9% plus? No.
In fact, the UK is probably a best case model for Mexico, in that it took about six years for the UK to go from a major, one mbpd or more, net oil exporter to a net importer. If Shields is right, Mexico could be a net importer or minimal exporter, as soon as late 2008, depending on what happens to production and consumption.
The math on Cantarell is just relentless--as of early 2006, an 800' oil column that was thinning at about 300' per year.
Note that Pemex has suspended, for at least a year, 100% of crude oil deliveries to the refinery that it jointly owns on the Gulf Coast.
I think that the only real difference between Pemex and Saudi Aramco is that Pemex has grudgingly admitted to the decline of its largest field.
Waves on the tide, Nate. Waves on the tide.
But when this tide goes out, it's never coming back.
Well, the sooner peak comes the better we can deal with gw, even tho there will be a dash for coal.
Do you think that the mex 6% rise is or might be predictive? I don't, not just because their largest field is crashing but because they have no new large fields in development. Their situation looks to me exactly like sa in particular and the persian gulf in general.
Nate
adding to my other response
Reports by sa say their current production is substantially below the level they agreed to. Do you think this means anything? Do you see a substantial difference between persian gulf countries' direction of future production and that of mexico?
And, what do you make of the fact that bottom up analyses, along with the rest of freddy's punters, all predicted substantially more production in 06 vs 05, on the order of 2-3 Mb/d or more, whereas actuals are flat?
Four "Hubbert" Declines & Peak Oil Denial
Crude Oil = Crude + Condensate (EIA)
The Lower 48, North Sea, Mexico and the World are all now showing lower crude oil production. In all four cases, they started declining after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.
Three of the declines were predicted, using the Hubbert methods: Lower 48 (Hubbert); Mexico (Khebab) and the World (Deffeyes).
We know that three of the declines are involuntary: Lower 48; North Sea and Mexico. We also know that Saudi Arabia and Mexico are now cutting or reducing crude oil deliveries to buyers who want to buy more oil than they are receiving.
We know that the world decline coincided with the highest nominal oil prices in history, as oil prices showed an average 21% year over year increase from 2002 to 2006, inclusive. Since world crude oil production started declining in June, 2005, oil prices have been trading in a range about 25% to 100% higher than their previous (nominal) peak in 1980.
We also know that between 93% and 100% of all oil fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more are now in decline or crashing.
Assuming that world crude oil production today is still below its May, 2005 peak, world crude production has been below its 2005 peak for portions of three years, the last half of 2005, all of 2006, and into 2007.
Based on the Lower 48 and North Sea case histories, which peaked 29 years apart, the only thing that increased drilling and better technology will do for us is to slow the post-peak rate of decline in conventional crude oil production.
Jeffrey-
Do you have a source for that? Id like to use it in a paper. Thanks
My recollection is that there are, or were, 14 oil fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more. Until recently, four were still producing one mbpd or more--Ghawar; Cantarell; Burgan and Daqing.
Daqing is now less than one mbpd, leaving the other three.
The Kuwaitis have admitted that Burgan is in a long term decline, and the Cantarell crash is self-evident, which leaves us with Ghawar. Thus, between 93% to 100% of all fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more are now in decline.
Prudhoe Bay and Daqing are good examples of former super giants. Prudhoe Bay is producing about 400,000 bpd, but it is in terminal decline, with a 75% water cut. Daqing is around 950,000 bpd, with a 90% water cut, also in terminal decline.
The only new one mbpd and larger field on the horizon is Kashagan which won't cross the one mbpd mark until 2020, at best. It won't even start producing until some time after 2010.
Two more are abqaiq and safaniya, from twilight. The former peaked a little over 1Mb/d of high quality light oil in 1973, down to 500k/d in 02; the latter peaked at 1.5Mb/d of low quality heavy oil around 1980, down to 800k/d in 02. Simmons says safaniya has very heavy crude, and that if there is any spare capacity at all (some oil that buyers are really reluctant to buy because the oil is hard for most refiners to process), it is about 500k/d from this field. I'm kind of surprised that low quality stuff can't be blended with lighter oil, eg from abqaiq, to make it salable.
It is worth re-reading SImmons' discussions regarding turning sows ears into silk purses, part of chapter 9, to see just how problematic are sa plans to raise production at long abandoned fields. Basically, its all about ghawar.